Paulo Pilotti Duarte

This is the title of the Brice Wray author, thinking about a possible collapse of the Mozilla Firefox. You can read the full article by accessing Firefox on the brink? The Big Three may effectively be down to a Big Two, and right quick. Also, you can engage in the Hacker News discussion about it.

***

To claim this allegation, Brice bases it on several factors, including:

  1. There has been a steady decline in Firefox's market share, which has fallen from 31.82% in November 2009 to just 3.17% in November 2023.
  2. The rise of Google Chrome, now the most popular browser in the world, with a market share of 62.85%.
  3. A new US government guideline requires government websites to be compatible with Chrome and Edge, but not with Firefox.

The main reason for this title is that Wray believes that the US government guidelines are a significant blow to Firefox, as they will make it more difficult for Firefox developers and users to access government websites. He also argues that the decline of Firefox is making it more difficult for Mozilla to attract new resources and funding.

It's difficult to say whether Firefox is on the verge of collapse. However, the browser is facing significant challenges. If Mozilla cannot find a way to reverse the decline of Firefox, the browser may disappear soon.

Overall, Wray's article is an important warning about the future of Firefox. The browser is facing significant challenges, and it may disappear soon. Of course, it's challenging to look at Firefox as a threat to browsers from large companies, such as Microsoft, Google, and Apple, mainly because the first has embedded ChatGPT in everything, especially in Edge; the second has a broad dominance in the mobile market (Android) and the PC market (Chromebooks, desktops, and notebooks); and the third has, in the US, a gigantic installed mobile base (which should be the justification for the +30% using Safari) which still adds up to, probably, the most extensive Mac base in the world.

The situation of Firefox is VERY complicated. And I am pretty worried – to the extent that is possible – because FF is my default browser, and I think it is our best alternative to the walls of Big Techs.hs.

  • P

I do not know we wrote this.

(…)

I need you to do something for me I need you to let me go You have to let me let you go In another life Maybe it was you and me Maybe there we loved each other right And we were happy together Maybe in that life we did all the things we said we would But we got this one instead You were my friend, my love and now a stranger But you always be my favorite memory In this life

(…)

  • P

Using the comment I made on Órbita, the Manual do Usuário's Hacker News, discussing Gabriel Fernandes' text about not having to combat AI but rather combat work, I reproduce the comment here.

Using the comment I made on Órbita, the Manual do Usuário's Hacker News, discussing Gabriel Fernandes' text about not having to combat AI but rather combat work, I reproduce the comment here.

We should have already been working 6 hours or less since the proliferation of the internet. We should have had 90 days of vacation since the popularization of computers in companies. We should have had 1 year of maternity leave (or more). We should have had salaries adjusted according to the profits of the companies we work for. We should have had a lot of things already, but “late capitalism” is cunning, and it has been discovered that it is much simpler to individualize problems and people than to generate improvements in well-being.

One of the most evident symptoms that the capitalist system is very efficient in creating new ways to exploit workers is precisely the platformization of jobs. We took a recurring problem (CLT workers or equivalents fighting for more rights and unionizing) and turned it into an individual problem (now each person is an “entrepreneur”).

What does this platformization sell? You receive a fair value for your work without the government taking a bite out of your salary, and you have the freedom to work whenever and however much you want. What is the reality? The delivery driver, the app-based driver, the freelance programmer, and many others need to work +12 hours a day to achieve the same level of job security they had with CLT/contract/employment bonds.

From time to time, something happens in the world of work and forces companies to tighten their belts even more. The pandemic showed that remote work can be the reality for most professions. What did this generate in companies? Mass layoffs to create a state of terror among workers and force them to accept returning to an excruciating 3-hour public transport routine.

In addition, the LLMs put on the table that technology already has the potential to significantly improve our lives, to the point where most jobs can be done automatically, requiring only human review afterward. This should lead to fewer working hours and more leisure hours, but the opposite will happen (and is happening): more working hours, more freelancing, more platformization, and more terror, because, once again, companies have realized that it is simpler to create a terror environment that “you will be fired if you don't give 150% of yourself at work” and still profit even more, paying even less.

The problem is not AI, it's not the invasion of personal data, it's not company X or Y. The problem is capitalism. Until we (workers) realize this and think that we can patch up this system with a failed social democracy or mitigate the problem by choosing the companies we consume, we will only be sweeping the problem under the rug.

  • P

Arun.is made a post about this. I recommend it.

The main point is as follows:

Apple has continued to update and evolve the Shot on iPhone campaign as the iPhone itself has evolved. They have held competitions to showcase new features like night mode and macro. As the iPhone gained professional features, Apple has been demonstrating how people are using iPhones in professional shoots. The film introducing the iPhone 15 Pro was filled with professional video shoots.

The question of whether a smartphone can be a good everyday camera has already been answered. Shot on iPhone no longer needs to convince consumers that the iPhone is a great pocket camera.

The new message is for professionals: the iPhone can replace a professional camera that costs as much as a luxury car. It's not the only equipment you'll need, but you already knew that.

I see this as Apple's eternal return. Apple is a company that aspires to be luxurious and exclusive, to enter the homes of the wealthy as an object that is displayed, like a Patek Philippe, a Bola Valpolicella, or a Solid Gold OVO. But Apple is not that. I don't know if it will become that. It's a company that makes computers, phones, tablets, and watches inaccessible to the lower class (and to the middle class in peripheral countries); at the same time, it's not a luxury brand understood as something exclusive by the super-rich. Don't get me wrong, they have MacBooks, Studios, etc. But it's not the objects they consider complete; it's the tools (for watching videos, sending emails, taking photos on a trip). And Apple wants to be exclusive, wants to be a luxury, professional brand.

It's a repositioning compared to Apple's resurgence (with the Macs G3) and even the launch of the first iPhone.

Will it work?

I don't know. Not in less than a decade. But the truth is that Apple has a clear message: if you're the one financing your computer in 12 installments, having a friend buy it in Miami, or purchasing a used one from 4 or 5 years ago, you're not the company's target audience, and the company doesn't care if you use their brand.

Putting that aside, the event filmed with an iPhone, even with a large amount of professional equipment, is a message to the professional and high-end market: use iPhones instead of renting intermediate cameras.

~~

  • P

Today, I make a small confession. I am 40 years old, work, and support (almost 80% of everything in my current home is paid for and maintained by me) my immediate family (mother and brother). They are great people who never complain.

But it’s not about them that I’m going to talk about. Nor about myself. It’s about the “surroundings” of society. As I mentioned in the reality check text, I always live on a tightrope where I balance life in the periphery, daily and routine, with the usual setbacks of a life of privations. Nothing that is not normal and every day for those who go through the same process. On the other hand, I have contact with people from a different social spectrum- the middle class- via the internet and because of having studied at a federal college.

Within this distinct reality, far from the majority of Brazilians, people tend to think that the fact of “not getting by” (meaning doing what everyone does in the periphery) is a reason to raise red flags. Getting by is typical of this class, mainly because their concept comes from a twisted idea of doing the basic things of daily life in a household. Cooking, cleaning, shopping. These things, which in the world of most of these people who complain about “getting by,” are just one more daily task in the world of the issues that everyone faces in the peripheries (in addition to money problems, justice, theft, housing, education, health, and many others).

So, most people who complain about others being spoiled are also. That girl who thinks every man is like her ex-boyfriend, spoiled and raised without responsibility, is also spoiled compared to a peripheral woman who worked from an early age at home, took care of siblings, and got a minimum wage job. It’s not the exchange program in Ireland that teaches you to get by; on the contrary, it only reinforces that you are spoiled.

What do I mean by all of this? Setting aside the rant, it’s that the people in the internet’s court of micro-causes (aka X/Twitter) are spoiled, foolish, and almost always incapable of understanding the material reality that surrounds them.

In other words, you are also spoiled, privileged, petty, and arrogant.

~~

  • P

Or better said: what can ensure that companies don't have access to my data?

Short answer? Nothing.

Long answer? Nothing. But we can assume one or two things regarding the math behind this subject.

First of all, encryption is typically based on a pair of keys (one private and one public) used for data encryption/decryption. Your public key is stored on the server and is used to encrypt data on it. Your private key resides on your device and is used to decrypt content from the server. In theory, only someone with both keys can read your messages. The concern with companies is whether they can access your device to capture your private key. Ideally, this access shouldn't exist (it would be a backdoor). However, closed-source code may have mechanisms to decrypt messages with an intermediary key if necessary, but this is unlikely due to computational cost. A simple cryptographic key (RSA) uses prime numbers, and predicting/generating them is challenging (solving the Riemann Hypothesis would be worth $1 million) [1].

This is a very simplified explanation.

Regarding Apple, they have a well-documented approach to encrypting volumes on macOS. Their strong encryption is bolstered by the Secure Enclave, used in SoC chips (T1, T2, and M series). Trust in these companies not accessing your data relies on faith and their reputation in the privacy field. Currently, Apple has one of the best reputations in this regard.

***

[1]: In 2018, Michael Atiyah claimed to have a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. While he was well-known in mathematics (a Fields Medal winner), the topic has since received less attention.

~~

  • P

Everyone must have come across the famous image – whether it's a quote, a protest banner, a flag, or graffiti – of the worker who always assembles a machine gun from vacuum cleaner parts.

The phrase originates from the concept of alienation in factory workers. It symbolizes a factory worker who, detached from the final product, believes they are producing vacuum cleaners. However, as they start taking home pieces of the product, they realize it's a front for manufacturing machine guns. This metaphor reflects a laborer who invests their time working for an ideal they don't fully understand, thinking it's for the common good, when in reality, they're being used for harmful purposes by their employer or leader.

Additionally, it raises the question of how many of us can say we can afford the products we manufacture with the time we dedicate to making them. Workers often feel alienated from what they produce, lacking the rights to the products they create and receiving little in return. This highlights the truth of worker alienation.

One can draw parallels with the chaotic and blind situation of Manhattan Project workers, as seen in the recent film “Oppenheimer” by Christopher Nolan.

From an artistic perspective, it reminds me of the song about the man in black who assembles a Cadillac from stolen parts but ends up with a mishmash of various models, reflecting the concept of planned obsolescence and resulting in a “Homer's car.”

In this analysis of Harun Farocki's work “The Inextinguishable Fire,”, by Paulo Martins Filho, the author delves into the idea of responsibility in the face of violence and suffering, particularly regarding the use of napalm. The film confronts the viewer with a man who burns his own arm, highlighting the stark contrast between the concrete image of suffering and the indeterminate image conveyed through words. The essay also discusses how Farocki uses various sequences to engage the viewer in the ethical and moral implications of napalm production, including a satirical reenactment of a Dow Chemical factory meeting.

The final scene, with a man assuming different roles, emphasizes the role of workers, students, and engineers in the production process, showing that a factory can produce a wide range of items, from household appliances to weapons, depending on those involved. The text underlines the idea that responsibility cannot be dissociated from the products created, and the audience is called to confront the reality of their involvement in the processes that lead to suffering and violence.

This analysis provokes deep reflection on our role in the production and consequences of such products, ultimately emphasizing the responsibility that we all share in the face of violence and suffering.

The thing is: whatever your view and interpretation of the topic may be, the truth is that it's about the worker, the oppression of capital, and how the entire system is a “force” that destroys workers.

  • P

Using ChatGPT to try to create a Python script that makes a basic prediction about the price of a specific B3 stock. The idea is to use the CSV file with historical data and generate a forecast using the ARIMA model for prices next week.

Simple Stock Prediction.

TL;DR: It doesn't work very well; don't rely on it for anything.

  • P

Even though I can consider myself an English fluent speaker – not a bilingual person – I always have some troubles with the English verb tenses.

So, I made a 'cheat sheet' with the main verbs, a simple example, and how and when you can use them.

Maybe it can be useful to someone else

  • P

Jep. That is the true. The Israel state need to mantain – and support – Hamas in order to keep with the genocide agains't the palestinians.

There is no good guy in this war and the only ones who suffer are the people from both states, remember that.

Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, called for the immediate resignation of António Guterres. Guterres had requested a ceasefire in the Middle East at the Security Council and stated that the Hamas attacks, which killed 1,400 Israelis on October 7, did not happen in isolation, as Palestinians have endured “56 years of suffocating occupation.”

And always remember who you're sided with ...

  • P