Browser vendors are free to choose their own default search engines and get paid for it just like how Brave search is the default search on brave private
This tweet thread is unnecessarily confusing the two. How does restricting browser engine to webkit decide what browser engines they use?
Short answer: No market share = no search engine revenue
By:
1. Eliminating browsers ability to differentiate itself
2. Forcing additional costs on the browser vendors to have to develop a second browser specifically for iOS
3. By reserving functionality exclusively for Safari
4. By eroding third party browsers market share by self-preferencing Safari (default install, couldn't set another default browser until recently etc etc)
Ah you mean unlike Google which pushed its browser through its dominant search, dominant mail, dominant video hosting etc. Which sabotaged Firefox. Which still conveniently "forgets" user choice of browsers in its apps and defaults to Chrome?
10 people sit on the managing board, none of them household names: Børge Brende, Mirek Dušek, Julien Gattoni, Jeremy Jurgens, Adrian Monck, Sarita Nayyar, Gim Huay Neo, Olivier M. Schwab, Saadia Zahidi, and Alois Zwinggi.
You shouldn’t blame culture when investments on this front are lacking.
Local governments in India are perennially short on money and it’s they who are responsible for things like water supply, sanitation and garbage collection.
There are several joint venture garbage disposal companies operating in India. But only a few municipal corporations can afford to pay them.
And those few cities that do use these services rank well in cleanliness rankings
there is a catch-22 that must be broken somehow (with some initial outside injection of funds) but if people appreciate the service it enters a virtuous circle: the people working on garbage disposal get salaries, they consume more and pay taxes, the taxes support municipal services which pay the salaries and the loop is closing.
people tend to discount how strong this circular effect is in the economy and implicitly assume that money is found under a rock (or stolen) and is essentially finite. there is some truth to that the sense that if the products or services people want depend on scarce natural resources (e.g. oil) then this creates a constraint. but for large parts of the economy the potential resides in our brains.
not a specific blame at all as this applies everywhere, just to different degrees. think about art for example. we have only as much art as we think is important because all artists must live from the rest of us. but if people think its important and they somehow get paid, they contribute to general welfare with their own demands etc.
its by no means trivial to change attitudes and there can be many other events that can derail those positive loops. but the general principle is something that should be appreciated more because that is ultimately how all wealth is built.
> they consume more and pay taxes, the taxes support municipal services which pay the salaries
In India, neither income taxes nor consumption taxes go to the local municipalities. This fact makes the rest of your comment meaningless although positive loops can be created in other ways.
But my original point stands: Local governments need to increase their housing taxes and provide these services
There’s a pro-Poor policy bias in places that are actually rich and these places have very different expectations.
There are laws against dumping trash and sewage into creeks which do not get enforced.
City corporations need money to enforce the laws and clean stuff up but housing taxes continue to remain disproportionately low and people don’t pay that either.
