> All the expensive pills are just to avoid the laxative effect. No further benefit.
Different substances may have seriously different subjective (e.g. on mood, sleep) effect in at least some people (e.g. me). I may be a good idea to try bisglycinate, orotate, threanate to check whether some of them act the way you like.
Theonate gives scary NDE style dreams/out of body experiences. It is supposedly a nanoparticle formulation that crosses the blood brain barrier. Makes me wonder about safety.
Not to me, gives me a full night of deep uninterrupted sleep instead.
> out of body experiences
I would pay thousands of dollars for a pill which would give me an out of body experience. To me it seems among the most important things to have experienced before you die.
Have you taken any malaria prophylaxis pills? I had the weirdest dreams on those (maybe not an oit of body experience though), and so did most of the people on the work trip I needed them for. Malarone seemed most likely to trigger vivid dreams, some people had received a newer? medicine which seemed less impactful.
Some malaria drugs have pretty serious warnings aboit psychiatric effects that may continue even after stopping use, so be careful.
There are many substances (including legal and easily available) which can cause vivid and weird dreams. For example you can try apple juice and St. John's wort.
How much really is dangerously excess? How do methylcobalamin vs cyanocobalamin compare in this regard? I noticed B12 supplements usually exceed the RDA by some orders of magnitude.
> Increasingly hard to get Mg tablets without Vitamin B
Same problem with iron supplements. Not particularly easy to find iron without folic acid. Folic acid can be very harmful for people with methylation problems (an extremely widespread genetic thing) who should supplement methylfolate instead. Whoever feels stimulated and harder to sleep after taking a folic acid pill - beware.
B12 is water soluble and does not cause neuropathy. It was a error by the original poster.
As for methyl vs cyano, it depends whether you have the genetic factors that would benefit or not from methyl groups. In my case I wouldn't benefit so I don't take the methyl form and instead take the hydroxy and adeno forms.
Cyano is useless. Needs multiple steps in the liver to convert.
There’s a fair number of brands selling mg alone and fe alone. Maybe it’s hard outside the US? Or maybe places like target and CVS don’t carry them - those places do have limited options.
Yeah, I don't think I've ever seen Mg supplements with other stuff added. I'm currently using glycinate and taurate in powder form, and there's nothing else listed.
I sprained something in my lower back badly enough about a year ago that it took four trips to the chiropractor before I could get out of bed in the morning without lots of swearing. After that, it would seem to be getting better for a few days, then regress into spasms again. After a month or so of that, I remembered that Mg is supposed to be good for tendons and ligaments. I took a good dose of Mg that night, and it was significantly better the next day, and improved from there. That's the only time in my life that I've had a clear, major difference from taking a supplement.
You can walk into target, Walmart, CVS, etc and have plenty of options for iron alone (which isn't widely packed with other vitamins outside a multi) and magnesium alone.
(Jumping to assume what the original commenter meant:)
China is pushing RISC V aggressively, and might be a lot more likely to succeed in making competitively powerful cores than €240M pounds spent in Europe, where money won’t go nearly as far.
I imagine one of the biggest constraints on success here is just expertise. If Apple’s hardware team, or Qualcomm’s Oryon team were tasked with making a high performance RISC V CPU, I’m sure they could crank out something incredible pretty quick. But I have a feeling practical expertise on this sort of cutting edge hardware design is a rare thing. Frankly no idea how this human capital compares between Europe and China, but I’ll be excited to see progress and genuine competition on open architectures like this
I work in this space and I would say it's pretty even between Europe (the UK in particular, but also other countries like the Netherlands and France) and China.
> where money won’t go nearly as far
I'm not sure about this either - apparently high tech salaries in China are not out of line with Europe (both are way less than America).
But China does have more enormous companies that can fund their own chips (e.g. ByteDance).
> Companies must invest to train current workers to pick up new tasks — and invest to recruit replacement employees after the economy improves or the company’s financial troubles clear up.
It always baffled me how could a businessman fail to understand that loosing a reliably working employee (even of mediocre productivity) is like shooting your own leg - resulting in having to look for a replacement, train them and hope (certainty is value worth money as well) they are going to be as good. To me it seems it is always better to increase the wage to avoid losing people already working for you so you save yourself from the hassle.
> The Justice Department also kept a Biden-era proposal that seeks to ban Google from paying companies like Apple, other smartphone manufacturers and Mozilla to make its search engine the default on their phones and browsers.
Welp. They had a chance to be default alive and they fucked it by trying to spend the money on new initiatives instead of just spending the interest payments from an endowment.
Yes. And other than Firefox, Mozilla was spending money in two ways. First creating new paid products in an attempt to have revenue in case the Google money ever went away. None of them were successful enough to meet this goal, but it was a good goal. Secondly, they spent their charity donations on activism work. The way they are structured they legally could not spend that money on Firefox. They would need to restructure as a non-profit corporation (not tax deductible charity) to accept donations to spend on Firefox, like their Thunderbird subsidiary. I hope they do so now, and at least attempt to support Firefox on donations.
The truth is that browsers are a very complicated, very quickly moving, and very security sensitive piece of software. They spent all that money on Firefox rather than saving it because if they didn't Firefox would have fallen behind Chrome and Safari and it wouldn't be worth using today.
I would put that heavily on the “excuse not reason” category. The public doesn’t understand this nuance and I hope you’re right about next steps.
It makes no good goddamned sense that money that was given in order to be featured in a web browser cannot be spent primarily on that web browser, and can only be spent on anything except that web browser.
They have been saving up a bit last year if you see the financial reports their reserves are just above $1B now and there are others who paid in the past (like Yahoo did till 2017) who will pay Firefox a decent amount if not like Google does .
My guess it is likely be Bing or probably a new generation AI company like OpenAI who will replace Google and perhaps even pay similar or close to what Google pays. The traffic is worth a lot. Bing attested to click flow as the reason they cannot make a better product in their testimony in this trial.
Also Google will either be allowed to continue the contract till its current end (I believe 1-2 more years ) or will pay fully and release Mozilla from their obligations (Mozilla is not party to the case so early termination without compensation would be penalty on them for no reason ).
Mozilla will need to make some significant cuts and layoffs no doubt will be hard on the team, but the product will survive.
They can start by reducing their CEO salary from check notes $6.9 million in 2022. It increased by millions in just a decade while their market share declined and they layed off hundreds.
Any other CEO in Silicon Valley with similar circumstances (25 years experience in tech leadership, increasing revenue dramatically despite shrinking market share, negotiating successfully with their biggest competitor, etc.) would be making $5M-$20M depending on stock compensation, which Mozilla does not offer. How does paying less than market rates for a CEO help improve Mozilla's lot?
Or are you suggesting that none of these CEOs should be compensated at current rates? If so, hate the game and not the player my friend.
Compensation is complicated and function of value added to the organization may not correlate to work put in. I have no opinion on what should be cut, just pointing out it won't the end of Mozilla without Google deal.
--
For anyone who wants to know what the other side of the compensation discussion would go like..
One could argue though the Mozilla leadership has also more than quadrupled their revenue from $150M in 2011 to $690M in 2024, despite loosing market share, revenue generated from their only competitor no less. It isn't a easy job to convince your competitor to be your primary source of income to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and keep increasing that every year.
Yes, Google is not funding the search deal out of the goodness of their hearts, but they also don't have to pay $500M+ per year to keep Mozilla alive if that is all they cared about.
Such a deal doesn't happen without a ton of work by Mozilla to build relationships, show value of paying 500M to Google etc.
If the leadership can no longer generate the growth/value they too will face the music sooner or later. Mozilla still would need competent people(this group or another) to be able make the deals to pivot to other revenue sources and they don't come cheap.
A for profit subsidiary of a non-profit in software world will always end up paying what looks like generous compensation perhaps even compared to the market for similar roles in pure for-profit companies, because unlike those companies, Mozilla cannot offer stock compensation on top of cash.
In my opinion Firefox is better in all the ways except speed - Chrome still feels faster on old computers. And I prefer the browser market to still have some technical diversity no matter who actually runs it.
Firefox had Servo, a project that among other things focused on delivering faster technologies for a web browser. They had impressive results (integrated into Firefox as Firefox Quantum) but were suddenly fired
At that point I think Firefox lost a vision of a better future
Ever try installing chrome on an old operating system like Windows 7? It doesn't work but if already installed then much faster. Wonder upto what version works with win7
Some AI company could buy it and add some subscriptions based AI services. Or package it with optional but very popular and lucrative VPN, etc. There's a lot of potential business models apart from feeding advertising algorithms. Besides maintaining a browser is not stupendously expensive, firefox runs on about $500M in revenue.
If I am reading their financial statement correctly, they have about 3 years of runway.
$500M/year expenses, $65M/year revenue other than search deals, $45M/year interest on savings and $1300M assets.
I don't love the CEO bonuses, but they are objectively less than half a percent of Mozilla's budget. Google search on the other hand is 85% of their revenue.
Any other CEO with a similarly sized company, revenue stream, and user base in Silicon Valley would be making 2-3X what Mozilla's CEO makes when you consider total compensation.
I made that switch quite a few years ago, got sick of dealing with extensions and configuring browsers. Vivaldi gives me enough out of the box to call it good.
Mozilla should have seen this coming and invested in their own search and ad infrastructure like Brave. They’ve had years but wasted their time on tiny features like Pocket.
Nevertheless this seems a waste of resources for the feds to bust as long as there are many really dangerous criminals, doesn't it? Gangs terrorize the streets, corrupt politicians ruin the economy, foreign nation states operate huge covert operation networks but the feds rather hunt DVD rippers LOL
If every book, video, and painting is ripped off and shared for free why would any sane person pay? Of course the feds are going to act to defend the big budget spectacles which distract us from the corrupt clown show that is our world.
> If every book, video, and painting is ripped off and shared for free why would any sane person pay?
What about games? Do you mean the people buying games on gog.com are insane? I already spent over a $1000 there although I technically could easily pirate almost any of their games. At the same time I don't buy anything from Steam because I hate DRM. And the only place where I often buy digital books is HumbleBudndle - also because DRM-free. If something is both cheap (or not so cheap but still possible to afford and visibly great value) and DRM-free I see no incentive to pirate it for anyone who is not extremely poor (so they wouldn't buy even if there was no option to pirate).
> This is basically just a roomba with trays on it, right? Are they being unloaded by the customers?
Yes. The customers are really happy wit this. Everyone likes cute kitty robots bringing dishes to their tables where they take everything themselves. The restaurants using these usually are more expensive than average. Here in the EU, I dunno about Japan.
There will always be something dictating what you think until you really feel interested in actually thinking yourself and develop a critical and exploratory mindset. The active audience of this website probably is predominantly blessed with having this kind of mindset already but the general population probably lacks any incentive for developing it.
The general population figures out all kinds of complex things and loves it when tech provides solutions to those complexities. Commercials suck and Tivo flew off the shelves in part because of 30 second skip. Half of browser users have an ad blocker. No one was handed these by their Big Tech overlords, they sought them out and used them to fix their "feeds". Give people some credit that if we make good tools available, they'll avail themselves of those. The active audience of this website is probably capable of building some of those. So, get to it instead of lamenting the fall.
Not just Trump but any potential future administration. We’re no longer reliable partners who can keep continuity of our bureaucracy and foreign policy going for longer than four years without a geopolitical seizure.
reply