Mozilla alienating everyone and everything
-
The latest in Mozilla’s continued misadventures…
What next in the mission to demolish everything?
-
Mozilla alienating everyone and everything
Situation normal?
-
@kazitor If idiots are willing to donate in crapcoins, should a foundation refuse them?
-
@Bulb said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@kazitor If idiots are willing to donate in crapcoins, should a foundation refuse them?
If idiots are willing to donate in crapcoins which have a significant environmental impact then this foundation should:
Mozilla’s Climate Commitments | The Mozilla Blog
Assuming responsibility for our emissions “In these disruptive, crises-ridden times, our attention is often captured by the immediate political and techn
-
@loopback0 The other question is whether a software foundation should make climate commitments…
-
@Bulb I don't see why they shouldn't but either way they should be consistent about it
-
@loopback0 Since when is anybody consistent in their virtue signalling?
-
@Bulb said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@loopback0 Since when is anybody consistent in their virtue signalling?
So long as they're consistent in making up shit to virtue signal about it'll all be grand!
-
@Bulb said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@kazitor If idiots are willing to donate in crapcoins, should a foundation refuse them?
Should greenpeace accept someone ritually razing an acre of rainforest in their honour?
-
@loopback0 said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Bulb I don't see why they shouldn't but either way they should be consistent about it
I notice Brandon Eich, who was also a key figure in early Mozilla, isn't tweeting them expressing his disapproval.
I wonder why not.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear because he knows he’ll pull a shitstorm down on his head if he does. Namely because of https://basicattentiontoken.org/
-
Taylor Swift has also been silent on this.
-
@Arantor said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear because he knows he’ll pull a shitstorm down on his head if he does. Namely because of https://basicattentiontoken.org/
More likely, he didn't speak out because he doesn't look at crypto and its environment impact and decide that crypto is evil.
Put a little bit more directly, it is weird that Peter Linss and Jamie Zawinski, who are former key players at Mozilla, can dictate Mozilla's current culture to it.
They tweeted that Mozilla is wrong to accept crypto, and assumed that everyone would correctly fill in the blanks and deduce that their issue was with the environmental impact.
That's a dumb thing to assume unless you know everyone is already like-minded. I'd assume that most Mozilla employees are FOSS types, because that's what the organization is. I'd assume that 95% of people who work at NFL headquarters in New York are football fans for the same reason.
But if you're talking to a software organization, it shouldn't assume that everyone is like-minded on environmental issues. Especially when your appeal to authority rests on how you were a key player in the organization in an earlier era, and not all the key players from your era (c.f. Eich) agree with you.
This would have been a very different post if jwz had said "Mozilla shouldn't accept crypto because crypto is bad for the environment."
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Arantor said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear because he knows he’ll pull a shitstorm down on his head if he does. Namely because of https://basicattentiontoken.org/
More likely, he didn't speak out because he doesn't look at crypto and its environment impact and decide that crypto is evil.
Put a little bit more directly, it is weird that Peter Linss and Jamie Zawinski, who are former key players at Mozilla, can dictate Mozilla's current culture to it.
They tweeted that Mozilla is wrong to accept crypto, and assumed that everyone would correctly fill in the blanks and deduce that their issue was with the environmental impact.
That's a dumb thing to assume unless you know everyone is already like-minded. I'd assume that most Mozilla employees are FOSS types, because that's what the organization is. I'd assume that 95% of people who work at NFL headquarters in New York are football fans for the same reason.
But if you're talking to a software organization, it shouldn't assume that everyone is like-minded on environmental issues. Especially when your appeal to authority rests on how you were a key player in the organization in an earlier era, and not all the key players from your era (c.f. Eich) agree with you.
This would have been a very different post if jwz had said "Mozilla shouldn't accept crypto because crypto is bad for the environment."
He did use the term "planet-incinerating" to describe it, which I understood to mean "bad for the environment"/"contributing to global warming".
-
@Zecc said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Taylor Swift has also been silent on this.
Silence (Taylor's Version)
-
@Choonster said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Arantor said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear because he knows he’ll pull a shitstorm down on his head if he does. Namely because of https://basicattentiontoken.org/
More likely, he didn't speak out because he doesn't look at crypto and its environment impact and decide that crypto is evil.
Put a little bit more directly, it is weird that Peter Linss and Jamie Zawinski, who are former key players at Mozilla, can dictate Mozilla's current culture to it.
They tweeted that Mozilla is wrong to accept crypto, and assumed that everyone would correctly fill in the blanks and deduce that their issue was with the environmental impact.
That's a dumb thing to assume unless you know everyone is already like-minded. I'd assume that most Mozilla employees are FOSS types, because that's what the organization is. I'd assume that 95% of people who work at NFL headquarters in New York are football fans for the same reason.
But if you're talking to a software organization, it shouldn't assume that everyone is like-minded on environmental issues. Especially when your appeal to authority rests on how you were a key player in the organization in an earlier era, and not all the key players from your era (c.f. Eich) agree with you.
This would have been a very different post if jwz had said "Mozilla shouldn't accept crypto because crypto is bad for the environment."
He did use the term "planet-incinerating" to describe it, which I understood to mean "bad for the environment"/"contributing to global warming".
He also said "Ponzi grifters", which I interpreted to mean "crypto is a scam." Fair point, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Mozilla accepting it in lieu of not getting a donation at all.
Since he said "planet incinerating" and "Ponzi grifters," it comes off as him irrationally hating crypto for some reason he's not explaining. (Until I read people in this topic talking about it, I assumed his beef with crypto was the scam part because that's my frame of reference.)
If his problem is really environmental harm, he should have said it either before all the invective and hyperbole or after it. If you bury it in the middle, people aren't going to understand your point.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
before all the invective and hyperbole or after it
Congratulations on your recent crypto investments! This sentence may change in value without warning.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Choonster said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Arantor said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear because he knows he’ll pull a shitstorm down on his head if he does. Namely because of https://basicattentiontoken.org/
More likely, he didn't speak out because he doesn't look at crypto and its environment impact and decide that crypto is evil.
Put a little bit more directly, it is weird that Peter Linss and Jamie Zawinski, who are former key players at Mozilla, can dictate Mozilla's current culture to it.
They tweeted that Mozilla is wrong to accept crypto, and assumed that everyone would correctly fill in the blanks and deduce that their issue was with the environmental impact.
That's a dumb thing to assume unless you know everyone is already like-minded. I'd assume that most Mozilla employees are FOSS types, because that's what the organization is. I'd assume that 95% of people who work at NFL headquarters in New York are football fans for the same reason.
But if you're talking to a software organization, it shouldn't assume that everyone is like-minded on environmental issues. Especially when your appeal to authority rests on how you were a key player in the organization in an earlier era, and not all the key players from your era (c.f. Eich) agree with you.
This would have been a very different post if jwz had said "Mozilla shouldn't accept crypto because crypto is bad for the environment."
He did use the term "planet-incinerating" to describe it, which I understood to mean "bad for the environment"/"contributing to global warming".
He also said "Ponzi grifters", which I interpreted to mean "crypto is a scam." Fair point, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Mozilla accepting it in lieu of not getting a donation at all.
Since he said "planet incinerating" and "Ponzi grifters," it comes off as him irrationally hating crypto for some reason he's not explaining. (Until I read people in this topic talking about it, I assumed his beef with crypto was the scam part because that's my frame of reference.)
If his problem is really environmental harm, he should have said it either before all the invective and hyperbole or after it. If you bury it in the middle, people aren't going to understand your point.
It's a scam that after a decade of marketing hype bullshit still has its only use in enabling crime and money laundering, while having a huge environmental impact en passant. What's non-obvious about it? He's not adressing it to some randos who don't know this.
Why would anyone decide to donate to Mozilla in crypto but not donate if they can only donate in conventional money?
-
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Why would anyone decide to donate to Mozilla in crypto but not donate if they can only donate in conventional money?
Does your conventional money get more valuable via sussuration?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Since he said "planet incinerating" and "Ponzi grifters," it comes off as him irrationally hating crypto for some reason he's not explaining. (Until I read people in this topic talking about it, I assumed his beef with crypto was the scam part because that's my frame of reference.)
That's how I read it. I think the climate stuff is silly but for whatever reason that is officially important to Mozilla, so calling out their hypocrisy on it seems like fair game.
Filed Under: Never go full Gąska
-
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Why would anyone decide to donate to Mozilla in crypto but not donate if they can only donate in conventional money?
I don't know. I don't like crypto or Mozilla.
Leave the environmental stuff aside for a second.
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto, should Mozilla turn that guy down because crypto is a scam? The donation is a potential gift that they might get scammed out of because it's crypto. Turning down the gift leaves them in exactly the same place getting scammed out of it does. But if you accept the gift, there's the potential to actually receive something of value.
Remember, they're not selling a product that has marginal costs per customer.
Ok, fine, they should turn it down anyway because of the environmental impact. Then make that argument, but mixing it with "crypto is a scam" confuses the message because in Mozilla's case, they're recieving it as a gift, rather than as the payment they're entitled to for providing a good or service.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear You do realize that both can be equally true?
You just made several statements. Should we lambast you for making more than one statement because it might confuse someone reading it?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's willing to donate actual money, should Mozilla turn that guy down because that money was just robbed from a charity to help cancer patients, at gunpoint?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear Eich literally is the founder of a crypto asset setup, though. My link wasn’t arbitrary, it’s something he promotes on his own Twitter because he’s a founder of it and it’s not a good look to shit on someone accepting crypto if you yourself are a crypto vendor.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's willing to donate actual money, should Mozilla turn that guy down because that money was just robbed from a charity to help cancer patients, at gunpoint?
No, but that's different.
Casino gambling is a scam because the payouts are biased towards the house and everyone knows it.
If a guy is willing to donate a bunch of real money to Mozilla that he won at the roulette table, should they turn that down?
Because crypto is a scam in the sense that it's not really money, it's gambling.
-
@Arantor said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear Eich literally is the founder of a crypto asset setup, though. My link wasn’t arbitrary, it’s something he promotes on his own Twitter because he’s a founder of it and it’s not a good look to shit on someone accepting crypto if you yourself are a crypto vendor.
Yeah, he's a crypto vendor. Because he's a crypto vendor, he presumably doesn't think crypto is evil.
That's what I said.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
should Mozilla turn that guy down because crypto is a scam?
Yes. If the donor wants to deal in crypto scams, they can do the conversion of crypto to real money themselves.
Mozilla doesn't accept donations in gold, oil, or pineapples either, as far as I'm aware, and those aren't even a scam.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If a guy is willing to donate a bunch of real money to Mozilla that he won at the roulette table, should they turn that down?
No, how would they know that? They should turn down casino tokens though. Have the gambler cash out the tokens themselves.
-
@Rhywden said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear You do realize that both can be equally true?
I think they are equally true, in that the environmental harm of crypto and the harm that Mozilla is doing by accepting crypto despite crypto being a scam are both very overstated.
But this isn't the Garage, so leave the environmental impact aside. I'm not going to try to convince you of that right now.
From the "It's a scam" perspective, who's getting hurt by Mozilla accepting charitable donations in crypto? Why shouldn't they take them?
The reason it's confusing is because if you accept the environmental premise, you still are mixing one true thing with one false thing.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
but that's different.
No, it isn't.
Trading crypto is gambling.
Mining it is a criminally wasteful act of lunacy. Using it is being complicit to said crime.I won't elaborate further, because, yes, "never go full
". Whether it's you or me who's doing that, you decide.@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
But this isn't the Garage, so leave the environmental impact aside. I'm not going to try to convince you of that right now.
The environmental impact of crypto isn't a garage topic. It isn't a question of whether it makes polar bears piss different color or underwater beach resorts will become popular in the next decade.
It uses enermous amounts of energy without any return value. That's the key that separates it from all other climate concerns.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Because crypto is a scam in the sense that it's not really money, it's gambling.
In what sense is money really money? What’s your definition of money that crypto people say cryptocurrency satisfies, but not really?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
charity to help cancer patients, at gunpoint?
Take this chemo, or I'll blast your prostate out!
-
@marczellm said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
In what sense is money really money? What’s your definition of money that crypto people say cryptocurrency satisfies, but not really?
It's not that it is not a currency. It's that it is a currency that's not got any regulation to back it up, and whose price is extremely volatile. That makes it a pretty poor store of value. (It's also typically deflationary by design, which has its own set of problems.)
-
@marczellm said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Because crypto is a scam in the sense that it's not really money, it's gambling.
In what sense is money really money? What’s your definition of money that crypto people say cryptocurrency satisfies, but not really?
It's not money because you can't buy food with it and you can't pay taxes with it.
Crypto is a speculative asset, like stocks, precious metals, or collectible automobiles. You need to convert it to money before you can use it to meet basic needs. Those other things are all gambling too, but it's much easier to prevent scammers from stealing them.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
It's not money because you can't buy food with it and you can't pay taxes with it.
Crypto is a speculative asset, like stocks, precious metals, or collectible automobiles. You need to convert it to money before you can use it to meet basic needs. Those other things are all gambling too, but it's much easier to prevent scammers from stealing them.
True, except in El Salvador
-
-
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
-
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
Then sell your shit to the bigger sucker and donate money.
-
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
Then sell your shit to the bigger sucker and donate money.
That's dumb. Accepting the crypto plays to the
and makes it easier for people to donate.
-
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
Then sell your shit to the bigger sucker and donate money.
That's dumb. Accepting the crypto plays to the
and makes it easier for people to donate.Guess they should accept donations in cocaine too.
-
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
Then sell your shit to the bigger sucker and donate money.
That's dumb. Accepting the crypto plays to the
and makes it easier for people to donate.Guess they should accept donations in cocaine too.
OK @Gribnit.
-
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
Then sell your shit to the bigger sucker and donate money.
That's dumb. Accepting the crypto plays to the
and makes it easier for people to donate.Guess they should accept donations in cocaine too.
OK @Gribnit.
Cocaine is a much more stable commodity, but, I'd have suggested ammonium phosphate.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Put a little bit more directly, it is weird that Peter Linss and Jamie Zawinski, who are former key players at Mozilla, can dictate Mozilla's current culture to it.
I suspect they can't, despite maybe wishing they would.
I haven't seen much suggesting that their reaction has any impact on what Mozilla is, or is not, doing. They sound to me like old farts buried by history who still believe they matter -- especially when they feel the need to point out their past history with Mozilla: if they really were still influent, they wouldn't have to mention it!
(for a
version, you wouldn't see a Trump tweet saying "I'm sure whoever runs this account has no idea who I am, but I was President of the USA and ...")They can, like anyone else, say whatever they want about Mozilla, but that's entirely different from saying that they can "dictate" anything.
-
@marczellm said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
It's not money because you can't buy food with it and you can't pay taxes with it.
Crypto is a speculative asset, like stocks, precious metals, or collectible automobiles. You need to convert it to money before you can use it to meet basic needs. Those other things are all gambling too, but it's much easier to prevent scammers from stealing them.
True, except in El Salvador
And Venezuela of course
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@marczellm said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Because crypto is a scam in the sense that it's not really money, it's gambling.
In what sense is money really money? What’s your definition of money that crypto people say cryptocurrency satisfies, but not really?
It's not money because you can't buy food with it
Literally the first ever Bitcoin sale was pizza.
-
@Gąska said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Literally the first ever Bitcoin sale was pizza.
That's irrelevant because it was a one-time deal specifically negotiated between the parties. You can't buy pizza with it at your local store, for arbitrary values for local.
Also, they paid 10,000 BTC, at today's "value" of $463,618,575.43.
ETA: the transaction cost would probably be higher than the cost of the pizza today.
-
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Gąska said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
Literally the first ever Bitcoin sale was pizza.
That's irrelevant because it was a one-time deal specifically negotiated between the parties.
and there are other restaurants accepting crypto popping up every so often, although most (all?) of them only allow it for a short while.
-
@Gribnit said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@boomzilla said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
If Mozilla finds a potential donor that's only willing to donate crypto
You didn't answer why there would possibly be such a donor in the first place. I can't think of anything other than as a publicity stunt to promote their own crypto shit, or some kind of financial fraud.
Eh, I know people who have invested in crypto, and so far have continued to find bigger suckers. People give money to questionable causes all the time. Why not give some questionable pseudo-currency to a questionable cause.
Then sell your shit to the bigger sucker and donate money.
That's dumb. Accepting the crypto plays to the
and makes it easier for people to donate.Guess they should accept donations in cocaine too.
OK @Gribnit.
Cocaine is a much more stable commodity, but, I'd have suggested ammonium phosphate.
(joke in bad taste)
For more bang for your BTC, you need ammonium nitrate.
(/joke in bad taste)
-
@Gąska said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
although most (all?) of them only allow it for a short while.
Probably because of:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
ETA: the transaction cost would probably be higher than the cost of the pizza today.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
@Gąska said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
although most (all?) of them only allow it for a short while.
Probably because of:
@topspin said in Mozilla alienating everyone and everything:
ETA: the transaction cost would probably be higher than the cost of the pizza today.
It varies quite significantly - apparently the average cost at the moment is ~$2, but in April 2021 hit $62.
