Mozilla files IRS form 990 ("Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax") annually due to their nonprofit status. This can be found at the bottom of their "State of Mozilla 2018" annual report [1] and contains some details about their financials (as of November, 2019 at least). The linked page itself also contains some information about how Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation are structured and operate.
If you actually click through Google's result pages, you will find that there are actually only about 87 results. Even if you "repeat the search with the omitted results included" Google returns only about 226 results. Google's estimated result count is routinely off by so much as to make it virtually useless.
I found that going to the last page showed a more realistic number for results. This would only be shown on that "last page" of results though. However, it does seem strange that there are only 447 results for a google search of "apple"[0] down from a whopping 4,070,000,000 results shown before that page. And that is with show omitted results. Seems like max result limiting for the 0.1% of users that want to look past page 10 of search results
It is actually plausible that there could be billions of pages with apple on the internet.
The 447 results you paged through are just the most relevant docs for your particular query ("apple" + country) and Google doesn't bother retrieving any further. Your use case of finding all the pages with the term "apple" is simply too rare and too expensive to support and they don't optimize for it.
If you try different query variants apple + something with different locales (&hl=) you'd get very different top NNN results.
Google like all other web search engines never scan their whole index when searching, it's way too expensive. All sorts of tricks are used to aggressively prune matching results at every opportunity during retrieval until maybe a few hundred best scoring docs are left and that's what you're paging through.
But yeah, estimated result count is still a big lie either way
> I started a project which called Cosmopolitan which implements the αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε format. I chose the name because I like the idea of having the freedom to write software without restrictions that transcends traditional boundaries.
Levi Niha is really underrated. He makes music out of everything, takes on the weirdest challenges with a healthy dose of optimism, and manages to teach some stuff along the way without really trying.
I don't watch his videos that often but he's definitely amongst the people making youtube as a platform worthwhile.
They've also been promising full autonomy for five years straight. The wording of "Current autopilot features" is intended to help deceive the public into thinking that full autonomy is coming next year.
"Current" means the features that exist right now. This is a correct English description of how it works. In what possible way is it deceiving? How would you even phrase it differently in a short sentence?
This kind of claim — that they are making and breaking promises — is really flame bait. Every time I have asked for links to these promises, people have been unable to provide them.
Instead they provide links to articles where Elon said he "expects" or "thinks" or "predicts" (or, the most utterly damning case which I saw just once, "is certain") of something.
Where generally the something is either:
A) not even full self driving
B) or not on production cars, but only on prototype cars, and rightly so, because a regulatory approval will be needed.
I don't think these mythical "promises" really exist, except in the minds of people who have not understood what has been presented.
Of course you left yourself an out with the word "soon." OK, I think they can get away with saying that, but you have to be discerning as a reader and understand that the time scale is not going to be weeks or months.
turbocapitalists insisting that a "maybe" relieve people from their claims is the reason why progressive countries have laws against misleading advertisements separate from contract law.
I didn't expect Musk's defenders to offer up a defense whose cornerstone is that his judgment is so poor and his knowledge so weak that it is foolish to trust even short-term predictions about his own products.
It’s not exactly how you’re reading it, but you could say bleeding edge is how he operates. When there is a 51% chance of success, he goes for it. We’re talking in the lab. For consumer products, the standards are different. A lot of his statements are about the lab versions.
[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/