d0ntpan1c

Mull and Fennec are way more obvious android browsers to switch to if Firefox doesnt meet your privacy needs/concerns.

"Vast" would be a different company from the one marketing the Vera station, no?

NASA does a hell of a lot more work than just build rockets lol. SpaceX and all the other private space companies focus on a few of the wide array of programs and services NASA does. They certinally have some poor decisions in their history (as does every space program of the 20th century) but comparing SpaceX's spending with an appropriate context of NASA's spending is ludicrous. Its not something you can just put into numbers and any comparisons I've seen thus far have been wildly skewed in SpaceX's favor for marketing reasons.

NASA (and ESA, RosCosmos, others) funding provided decades of R&D SpaceX uses to build its products with and the university curriculums all the engineers at SpaceX learned at.

Also, we dont know how a NASA that wasnt so de-funded since the 80s would have operated, but it's well established that the budget cuts and uncertainty those created have been a major factor in its ability to build new programs like Artemis, Orion, SLS, etc. in a manner that would be efficient. SLS was bogged down for years waiting for congressional approval that was repeatedly blocked or maliciously modified last minute by congressional and senate republicans, a form of efficiency knee-capping that the agency never faced in the Apollo or Space Shuttle days.

have you seen the plastics industry? Let alone consumer packaging

Not an apples to apples comparison. Check out the many lawsuits and reported criticism of the more careless Starship test flights

For a company with plans so ambitious, they only have a marketing site, a YouTube channel, and some news articles from 2+ years ago, much less a partnership with SpaceX.

Also, do you know who built the Saturn V?

I'm not even going to get into a discussion of NASA competence. There are more than enough records available through widely accepted reporting and media to disprove any of the nonsense Elon cultists spew. Whether you subscribe to the Elon cult mindset or not is your prerogative and not an accusation I'm making..

Additionally, a significant amount of the funding for starship is coming from NASA, specifically from the Artemis program, to the tune of nearly $4 billion.

Elon can scream "mars" all he wants but he has virtually zero progress to report other than some wild plans to just throw people in tubes in the general direction. Last I checked, unless I've missed something, SpaceX has not put any amount of work into what is required to keep people alive on mars, much less alive on the trip to mars, and seeing as Elon's track record on delivering promises by self-imposed deadlines is basically 0%... We'll see if it ever even happens. Especially since he changes the goal post upon "delivery" (see: full self-driving basically never happening on top of killing more people per car than any other self-driving technology, cybertruck having a fraction of the features and capabilities that were promised on top of being extremely unsafe, semi being a massive failure, that ridiculous re-invention of the subway but for cars that makes 0 financial sense, and probably many more items I'm not thinking of at this moment)

I know they market mars hard, but the more relevant thing this is enabling is the starships that will be used for the NASA Artemis missions and upcoming moon base efforts. Those missions are going to need a few heavy flights each for the lander and a re-fueling ship, in addition to the SLS + Orion capsule for the actual astronauts.

Still wish the money was being invested in NASA to do themselves, and that it was being done without all the waste and environment destruction SpaceX so enjoys, but this is still a big deal to ensure Artemis happens.

Gmail app in particular has been basically abandoned for the last 4+ major android versions. I only really use it for my work email on a Shelter profile since it's just to handle urgent stuff if I'm afk. But even that minimal use has me about ready to install k-9 on the work profile too.

Maybe my memory is bring foiled by nostalgia, but i honestly remember the Gmail Inbox app being better than the current Gmail app. Clearly google can output a good UI, they just 100% choose not to.

The built-in email app for an OS doesnt have to be amazing, but it at least needs to be reasonable. iOS Mail isn't amazing either, but compared to the Gmail app it's a feature-packed power user tool.

Wow, Bitwarden has made leaps and bounds on catching up to 1password on dev tools and enterprise features the last few years. I'm going to need to re-evaluate/consider moving over.

As a side note, if you work somewhere that uses 1password, you can usually get your personal subscription comped as an individual. Only need to pay for it if you leave your company or they drop 1password.

I dont know that I'll stay on 1password forever, but on the scale of things I'm most concerned about self-hosting vs using a reasonably private SaaS, 1password is nowhere near the top of my list to ditch. Otherwise, its a solid recommendation for non-self hosters who want to make some progress.

Having enough political power to exert control over an industry is monopoly control in my book. Not yours?

Theres a massive difference between advocating for something bu havinf some power and influence, and doing so with the power of a monopoly. You took my words and dialed them up to assume monopoly when all I meant is having a seat at the table.

While you repeatedly insist (without basis) that services must use ads to exist, let me remind you: you are on Lemmy.

Obviously not all services require ads to exist. Ive not stated that once, but you apparently are happy to put those words in my mouth to suit your arguments.

And yet here you are, insinuating the government should legislate monopoly power over advertisements and simply hand the reigns over to the corporate interests that want to maximize profits at any cost.

I have no idea where you got this idea I'm advocating for an adtech monopoly.

~~You continue to put words in my mouth and come at this thread with aggression and demanding statements. You dont just get to demand a debate, and you certinally aren't going to sway someone's opinion by putting someone on the defense, putting words in their mouth, and attacking character right out the gate~~. Edit: apologies, someone else was doing the more aggressive responses. Difficult to keep track of this stuff on mobile sometimes.

How did you get an endorsement for adtech industry lobbying out of my other comments? And how would my comments insinuate that I want them to create a monopoly? You're engaging in some heavy reframing and redefining of what I've stated.

Mozilla deserves criticism. But i dont think it makes any sense to campaign against firefox as is happening all over this post. You are the one who began demanding an argument about Anonym on a comment where I was suggesting that firefox itself is still a net good, especially for people who want to continue to use forks like librewolf. Whether this path Mozilla is on ends up working out or not, firefox is still far superior in all sorts of other domains of privacy and user choice when it comes to a browser, and that allows the forks to exist, too. People should use forks if they want to, but they shouldn't discourage people from using firefox if they aren't interested in a fork.

I don't actually give a crap about Anonym, aside from the mission seeming better, nor do i believe I've endorsed Anonym anywhere. All I've said is thay they are steps closer to a realistic possibility for the current US political, legal, and economic environment to have any measure of privacy in advertising. You are the one trying to put the endorsement in my mouth and reflavoe my words as advocating for an adtech monopoly.

I'd rather Ads not exist. I'd rather tracking not exist. But Mozilla planting a flag on that hill only means they go extinct unless the political, legal, or economic environment of our society changes. And Mozilla going extinct also means the forks will most likely go with it, and that is a far worse outcome than Mozilla doing some ad stuff in a different business unit.

And based on Mozilla providing nothing more substantial than any other company engaged in the incestuous and corporate

I agree the PATCG is a pit of scum. But while it exists and it influences how Firefox will need to operate to be competitive and work with web standards, why should they be faulted for being a part of it?