[roenxi]

Who knew. The website isn't very accessible to people who brows with JavaScript disabled. I've said my politically neutral piece so now I get on to the more opinionated stuff - you know what that list says to me? It says Brave is actually putting an effort in to competing with Google and they're making the occasional mistake. It looks pretty healthy.

Maybe if Mozilla wasn't so sedated by Google cash they'd be trying things that might disrupt Google's search dominance. There is an amazing germ of an idea in Brave where they push the cost of ownership of a browser from $0 down into the negatives to where you get paid as a user to use Brave. That is a very interesting idea; I'd like a chunk of that advertising money and I think a lot of other people might too.

Brave might not carry the idea to its eventual destination, but there are interesting thoughts there which is more than anything I've heard out of Firefox in the last decade.

[tannhaeuser]

Just that Mozilla sucks doesn't mean alternatives can't be worse.

Aka the fallacy of the excluded middle or whataboutism as applied to the browser landscape.

Not to speak of the irony to disable JavaScript yet advocate in favor of a Chromium-derived browser and the approach of wholesale-integrating an ossified and unmaintainable (for anyone except state actors) O/S-like artifact to render text, video, run JavaScript, and everything in between.

The way out is and always has been to restrict web tech to actual document retrieval and viewing rather than project the web into a (non-) solution to unrelated issues such as failure of the software market, piracy, and revisionist 1980s F/OSS and portability agendas, and to take away browsers and web standards from ad monopolies.

[eesmith]

Works fine with me with JS disabled. Even works in text mode links and lynx browsers (lynx was more readable).

[roenxi]

The table of content doesn't show up.

[eesmith]

Indeed! I saw the individual section titles and thought that's what you all were talking about.