We need a multi-national, publicly funded research organization akin to CERN/within CERN, whose whole purpose is to develop a state-of-the-art browser that's not Chromium-based. Make #Google follow our lead, rather than us having to follow Google.

If the Web could be developed using public money, why not a modern browser? Public funding would remove the Mozilla problem of them having to depend on Google.

With the amount of money governments waste annually, we could fund this AND Mozilla.

There could be incentive problems here as well, of course, like governments threatening to withdraw funding in case a certain backdoor isn't included, or if it blocks ads too aggressively and some corporate-funded 'representative' starts receiving pushback from the industry etc, but which is why it would need to:

- Be funded by a wider variety of states than the Five/Nine Eyes members.

- Developed entirely in the open, each important change reviewed by a committee of experts from the public.

@MatejLach But how would you unseat Chrome at this point? Google have the incumbent advantage and the platform advantage. Technical excellence is only part of the story.

@cbowdon That's definitely going to be a challenge, but #Google did some smart marketing by having ads IRL, like in trains and such, even in smaller countries if the % of connected users was high enough.

Since it would be publicly funded, you could also install it on computers in publicly-funded educational institutions. A lot of software spreads by children installing it for their parents. If students are using it at school, they're likely to install it at home.

@MatejLach Ooh that last one is a good one. That’s what MS/Apple/Google are trying after all. You wouldn’t necessarily need CERN-like levels of funding to achieve it.

@cbowdon @MatejLach
but wouldn't you need CERN-like levels of fuding to develop a browser that keeps up with the moving target of shitty WHATWG standards?

I think to pull regular users in, we'd have to start with today's web. But once we have sway in the committees, you can begin to redefine what state of the art web should look like.

@Wolf480pl @cbowdon

@Shamar@mastodon social It won't work. Just take some time to, say, explain recursion or graph algorithms, image compression or even cryptography math to a totally untrained user. We will never get to a point of end users to read or understand their software. IMHO, trying to do so is a waste of time that could better be spent on building more ethical solutions that just work for this crowd.
@MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

@z428 @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon My position is that they should be *able* to (perhaps with a little training), but not obligated to.

@Shamar We're at a point where some adults have issues understanding higher math, some even have real issues learning to master natural language to understand complex texts or express themselves. And we actually did invent an alphabet to help these folks: Icons. Symbols. Easy interactions. So far this works well. Will we be able to do meaningful programming on that level?
@alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon

@z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @MatejLach @Wolf480pl @cbowdon in simpler systems, the meaning of "meaningful programming" might be a lot different than it is in bloated corporate software. just want to get that noted.

@grainloom @z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon

Btw. notice how the alphabet that supplanted the hieroglyphs was Phoenician alphabet - one that was used by merchants.

Now what do merchants use these days to do programming.... spreadsheets.

How hard is it to teach a 7yo how to use spreadsheets?

@grainloom @z428 @Shamar @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon

OTOH, imagine this wonderful future, where spreadsheets are the new JS and everything is even slower :blobsurprised:

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon The main thing I like about type theory is that all your proofs are constructive. You don't get that in set theory.
Also set theory is not good for automatic proof checking.

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon If you can only prove that something exists but can't construct it... how is that going to translate into useful computation?

@grainloom @Wolf480pl @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon

Mind to describe a computation you couldn't describe with Cantor's sets?

(all I know about type theory, I've learnt from Haskell documentation and a few other casual readings... be patient...)

@Shamar @grainloom @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon
Can I have a set of functions whose return value is a boolean?
If so, I just made a set of all sets.

@Shamar @grainloom @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon
it contains itself...

>Note how the Sets set is not an element of itself.

not anymore?

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon fric, my folder with all the cool papers is empty and I can't find the url for it but uuh there is existing research for doing namespaces and stuff like that...

uuuh @abs what was that very cool thingy you sent me??

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon

anyways, you don't need to base the language on set theory but you could use set theoretic notions to describe key-value pairs and that can be used to implement namespaces and structs

this is super nice because it'd be a bit like Lua's module system, where modules are really just tables

@Shamar @Wolf480pl @z428 @alcinnz @MatejLach @cbowdon It's not that you can't describe but that not everything you can describe can be computed. Eg.: existence proofs by contradiction.
But afaik you can express the useful parts of set theory in type theory, so why not just go with type theory?

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!