And websites are much worse quality when ad supported. It’s the same thing.

Don’t care.

By using a fucking third party. The only payment trail would be that I paid 9.99 to Mozilla once a month or whatever. It wouldn’t be to the websites. It’s not a complicated proposition. It happens all over with all kinds of other content. Brave are just the only ones who tried to do something similar in a browser.

But I didn’t do that.

I just gave the actual term I knew someone was going to ask about.

heterochromia

In case anyone is wondering.

A. Yes, you can. There’s the radio and various other ad supported free channels. People pay because ads are annoying, and paying for content in a fair way is a better experience.

B. I have no interest in “deciding on tips myself”. I want the sites I visit to be compensated, without the evil of ads.

C. I have no interest in crypto. Crypto is shit with pretty close to no redeeming qualities. I have no interest, ever, in any format that resembles a transaction per visit, or any format that results in a payment trail between me and websites I visit. I want to pay, once, per month, and have that money divided among sites I visit, just like it works with music.

That’s the premise that brave got the closest to of any browser. But they’re lunatics and absolutely cannot be trusted with any information in any format. That’s what I want a Mozilla, or other organization that is actually trustworthy, to handle. Allow me to pay to remove ads, with the consent of the websites in question, and divide that money among the websites I visit, in bulk so there are no transactions between individuals and sites.

I won’t even consider paying $1/month total to sites if the transaction is to the site. It violates my privacy to do so. I would happily pay $10-20/month to all the sites I visit if it was handled by a third party in a privacy preserving way, and I’m quite confident that there are plenty of people who would voluntarily pay more than whatever the “required fee” was if there was an optional higher tier that just gave more to the websites they used.

The concept absolutely has merit. It’s basically what all the music platforms are. People are willing to pay for content when they don’t have to pay individually for every listen.

It cannot even theoretically happen without a third party. Someone has to accept payments from users while protecting their privacy and redistribute it for the concept to work. I don’t “just want automated payments”. I want a single payment that covers my browsing behavior per month. I wouldn’t remotely consider a service that actually did a payment per visit. They can keep earning nothing from me if they want to do that.

I said “if Brave wasn’t unhinged”. But the core concept absolutely has merit.

There’s no inherent reason you couldn’t have sites opt in to another third party service, hosted by someone credible like Firefox, that just signed the connection as “paid”, then distributed most of the revenue to the sites, and it wouldn’t be hard for sites to take that “paid” signature and not display ads or trackers.

Look what they’re doing now. They’re using anti-adblocker tools to limit your access to the site, even though they know the conversion rate to people willing to watch ads is basically zero. If they had an option for “here’s how you can give us money”, a lot of them would take it. And there are plenty of people like me who would like to pay generally, but not dollars here and there to read single articles I have a passing interest in, and am just unwilling to allow the maliciousness (on several levels) of ads or the tracking for ads anywhere near my computer.

They already own all the big players.

If brave wasn’t completely unhinged, the idea of the brave attention token was kind of a cool idea (assuming you could pay a reasonable rate and not with ads).

But yeah, I fundamentally am not OK with tracking, am fundamentally not OK with companies paying to try to manipulate me, and am fundamentally not OK with the big attack vector ads expose. I would be willing to pay a reasonable rate for quality content, but it’s so fragmented there isn’t really any way to do that, and because of the way the monetization works, a lot of that content is compromised. So the end result is I don’t contribute anything to most sites I visit because I don’t have a real way to do so, but will not watch ads.

"Hardware,” to my surprise, has been a relatively small part of the company, with just 41 employees paid a gross of more than $17 million in 2021

That’s the only one I saw that meant anything that useful. They have ~10x that for game development but no indication of number of people there, and 79 people working on Steam.

Disney will own all of it.

Because they already own most of it and now have a massive productivity advantage.

Edited.

I just read their one example as one example, not as relative to the 70/30 split of CPUs used.

No, it’s very obviously not a win for the little guy.

If you can’t learn from public performances, art dies. That’s all of art for thousands of years.

the team dives into game telemetry data (from Oodle) that shows Intel CPUs represent 70% of the error logs compared to AMD with just 30%.

Uh, what’s the market share? You can’t really provide the one number without the other.

lol IDK how to link to a user on this app, but look at mox right below me. It’s just presented in a confusing way.

Disney won’t sell licenses.

They’ll keep their monopoly on 95% of the training data on the market for entertainment content, so they can accelerate their workflows using those tools, and everyone else is now trying to compete with their giant wallet and their extra tooling you’re not allowed to compete with.

How much less obtrusive do you think they can make it?

In the neighborhood of 100k dev kits isn’t half bad.

It’s probably that only their professional tier cards are built to handle synchronization on that scale. There are obviously other massive displays out there, but they’re also using specialized and expensive hardware to handle all the signal processing.

For all the reality of “streaming rights are a shitshow”, what percentage of the population do you think is willing to buy physical movies?

Because I don’t think it’s all that high.

Yes, it absolutely is.

The more relevant question IMO is what proportion of software (or by revenue) is installed through the Windows store.

Because compared to android (even counting Amazon fire and whatever other third party devices), I’m guessing that’s pretty low.