Maybe browser font tech wasn't quite there yet. It's not shown in the video but if you want the text to show mid animation then you need to do a skew effect on the text.
I always thought the argument was that "continuing to drive the cars we have is better than building new cars even if the new cars are EVs". Which, even if true, doesn't sound particularly helpful or useful because very few people had the financial ability to replace their IC car early just because it isn't an EV (which has historically been far more expensive).
Flights are one of the very few cases where this happens automatically though the card providers systems. It's called L2 data, and it's sent a little while after the transaction goes through.
Airlines are just about the only business that have the ability to charge credit cards without real time authorization by the network. This is for things like buying a drink while in flight. I wouldn't be surprised if this was all part of the negotiation.
I don't think this is the reason, cash will always have no fees. In some senses it can have negative fees if you're not very diligent with your tax reporting *wink wink*.
Not accepting cash is probably more to do with not wanting to deal with it, not needing to trust employees with it, keeping poor people out, and preventing robbery.
Credit card companies and banks know basically squat about your purchase except in certain circumstances (buying gas or flights causes more data to follow, called L2 or L3 data), or if they work with a data enrichment provider. There is a lot of action in this space right now, but the banks are hardly equipped to handle more data even if it became available.
Perplexity really fell off for me, especially the free version. Their syntax highlighting stopped working, and even the fonts seemed messed up. You could tell they were mixing and matching whatever the cheapest model was because the sources would be messed up and printed as plane text <grok source 1 http:// ... />
I guess it makes sense though, unless you've got the lowest pricing on your own model how can you compete.
As others have mentioned it doesn't stop YouTube ads or search ads. Most likely because Mozilla is still quite dependent on Google for it's income.
Which is why I think we need to be less critical everytime Mozilla tries to make money some other way. They need to become more self sufficient in order to improve Firefox.
That's correct. Soon there will be Ladybird, hopefully in a few years a very good competitor to Chrome/Firefox.
The thing I'm worried about with Ladybird is it's core logic is being coded by AI. I don't mind AI in other regions of code but I think core logic should be carefully written. They're also not very organized. Deciding to rewrite the whole codebase from CPP to Swift, then the decision changes to Rust shows uncareful decision making.
We need to be more critical every time Mozilla treats FF as a product to monetize. They should seek funding in the same way that every other charity does.
I don't think there's anything like that going on. They just word vomit into a secondary area, and then there is an internal prompt that says "clean this up and summarize for the user".
The training methods try not to apply any particular rules to the contents of the thinking text. That's called "optimization pressure on CoT" and is thought to reduce safety by inducing the model to lie (or stop clearly printing its intentions) in the thinking text.
I'm surprised to hear that it's so successful beyond banner ads. I figured most platforms would use the same domain for their ads as their content. I'm pretty sure YouTube and my "smart" TV do that. Plus I'd prefer to use DNS over HTTPS instead of using unencrypted DNS.
reply