LLMs are so good at telling me about things I know little to nothing about, but when when I ask about things I have expert knowledge on they consistently fail, hallucinate, and confidently lie...
But it's still not completely right. LLMs are actually great to tell you about things you know little about. You just have to take names, ideas, and references from it, not facts.
(And that makes agentic coding almost useless, by the way.)
I’ve found that they vary a huge amount based on the subject matter. In my case, I have noticed the opposite of what you observed. They know a lot about the web space (which I’ve been in for around 25 years), but are pretty bad (though not useless) at esoteric languages such as Hare.
Obviously, since the training material for such esoteric languages is scarce. (That's why they are esoteric!) So by definition, LLM will never be good at esoteric languages.
I think you end up asking it basic questions about stuff you know little about, but much more complex/difficult questions for stuff you're already an expert in.
I was going to comment on the Mac exclusivity too which might be a bad idea now that Linux is on the rise. But you're right, there's a Linux beta too now. Thanks for the pointer.
The vast majority of carbon in trees is pulled from the atmosphere during growth. A dead tree is still made of organic molecules, which have carbon in them. So trees are not "Carbon Neutral", they're "Carbon Negative" until the wood is burned, or it decomposes enough to become crude oil and then, well...
The most fun I've ever had in a museum was at the Perot Museum of Nature and Science in Dallas. The exhibits are interactive, educational, fun... mostly for kids...
I was 33 years old... I'd love to go back and do it all again.
I would imagine it's minimal. I'll never forget a demo I played with at a Science museum as a kid. A dynamo with a crank you can turn, and set of switches that allow you to turn on one, two, or three incandescent bulbs. The crank turns freely without load, and is increasingly more difficult to turn as load is added.
You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past.
Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?
They aren't hiding the fact that they forked, so it's not dishonest. Nobody really expects a fork to never merge again from upstream. The point of it is increased privacy as opposed to improving the browser fundamentally anyway. I don't give a fuck if they do or don't say "we still merge from upstream btw" (and they did hard fork at some point, so I highly doubt they even try to keep up). This isn't a mere rebranding of Firefox to steal credit.
