Ideologue. You've proven nothing, presented no evidence to demonstrate your point.
"I will keep my scientific discussions with scientifically-minded people (who do have contradictory and dissenting opinions, but can tell the difference between conspiracy theory dogmatic denialism and scientific discourse)."
This is a joke. You're doing exactly those things you accuse "deniers" of doing. It won't work. The fact is you have no scientific arguments to make. You've swallowed the kool-aid and try to hide it by calling other people names.
"And you'd be an idiot to think they won't silently change this in an EULA update."
You'd be an idiot to agree to this at all. But you make a good point:
This pervasive surveillance did not come about by accident. It came about by consumers (and others) agreeing to a little bit here, and a little bit there, because "it will never be used THAT way..." And of course, eventually it IS used exactly that way.
Consumers -- and citizens in general -- MUST get it through their heads that if they give away to somebody the ability to do something, including things that have the potential to steal away their privacy, eventually it will be used in just that way. History is full of such lessons.
Just don't give it to them in the first place! The potential good is far outweighed by the potential harm. As Lyndon Johnson (not one of my favorite people) said about this kind of thing: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
This is true, not just of legislation, but of technology too. There are some ways it should not be used. If you let it, the consequences will be bad. It's that simple.
"I'm sorry, quoting a page from fringe shill sources ("Principia Scientifica International")"
You are sorry, and you don't get to ad-hominem this away.
You have to refute their science, or you are just full of hot air. Period. Once again you reinforce the point I made. You aren't arguing science, just ideology.
Come back when you have an argument against their science. Unless and until then, I reserve the right to ignore any further ad-hominems and rhetoric.
"A tiny handful of fringe wackos does not counterbalance the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the broad validity of AGW."
That's actually very funny, because in fact that is how scientific understanding USUALLY advances... a handful of questioners versus the "consensus". And before you dismiss them as "fringe wackos" you might want to look up who they are and their qualifications.
As I say: everything you've said here so far merely serves to reinforce my point. You have demonstrated the classical behavior of an ideologue, and have made no scientific argument whatever. If you really want to refute what I originally wrote, you're going to have to do much better than that.
"Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking.."
Excuse me? You are claiming that actually researching the evidence on both sides is a "lack of critical thinking"?
Have you done that? (Never mind; it's a rhetorical question.)
The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute...
No, it isn't. The major debates today are about the very fundamentals of the theory. For example, the thermodynamic basis for the greenhouse model, and whether those models were developed responsibly. Those are just a couple of examples.
"AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill."
That's funny. Because I have actually researched these issues from a scientific viewpoint, and you apparently have not. All you did was reinforce my point: ideologues don't care what the facts are. People who disagree are infidels.
Even the merest suggestion that AGW is not gospel gets me down-rated. It's really pretty funny... the evangelists cannot stand to have anybody think critically.
"You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved? Macroevolution isn't reproducible testable science like newtonian physics or the germ theory of infection. A lot of these contrarians are just wanting that acknowledged rather than having Macroevolution presented as gospel truth."
I'll go farther than the other respondents: we've been watching species long enough now that macroevolution has been observed and documented, not just in bacteria but in macro-scale animals.
While it is true that it it is not possible to "prove" it as a theory, that's because of the way science works: NOTHING can be proved. Only disproved.
I you don't understand that, then you don't understand how science works.
"These critical viewpoints that have been injected into school curriculum for decades now probably have the side-effect of strengthening the rigor to which the study of evolution has in the end benefited."
I doubt it.
When the concept of "critical thinking" is deliberately distorted to include mythology, rather than theory, I very much doubt that pretty much any science benefits.
But then, the New York Times demonstrated its own lack of critical thinking when it conflated the theories of evolution and climate change. (Obviously, they meant the phrase "climate change" as the common euphemism for AGW.)
Regardless of your position on whether current AGW theory has merit, the similarity ends there. The theory of evolution has very consistent, strong evidence, gathered over a period of around 130 years or so. It is about as strong a theory as anything we have. "Climate change", on the other hand, is a collection of weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated. Rather like evolution was, more than 120 years ago. In addition, there is a great deal of scientific counter-evidence, which was rather lacking during the evolution debates. (Granted that there was evidence that was felt to be scientific at the time, but which has since proved false.)
Evolution is long and strong. It probably deserves to be put in textbooks representing the strongest theory we have. AGW is a lot less so; putting it in textbooks as though it were fact is... well, "premature" is a bit of an understatement.
"No not CHEAP qualified workers, I mean any qualified workers who know what a CANVAS tag is."
But I have to disagree with you here. Yes, what they want is CHEAP qualified workers. And where they're NOT finding them, is overseas.
While there are SOME qualified and reputable firms and people in "developing nations", the software job boards had become full of UN-qualified people bidding on everything in sight, claiming to be "experts", taking their up-front payments, then proving to be unqualified after all, or deliver late or not at all.
Then they just disappear, and next week they're bidding again under a different name.
More and more US firms are bringing their workforces back home, because the efficiency and expense of offshoring has proved to be simply inferior, in many cases. Over the last couple of years, more and more listings on the international software job boards have said "Australia, U.S., or Western Europe only."
The "finding" reported by OP shows very clearly that just about any person who is ignorant of the subject at hand can run through some numbers, find a valid correlation, and come up with a remarkably ridiculous conclusion.
JavaScript is common to many of today's software technologies because JavaScript is THE client-side scripting language for the Web. But by itself, it isn't going to get you much of anywhere.
"Really, because my gas, electric, water, and sewer bills all have a 'customer charge'."
Repeat: in many places it is not currently legal. Your mileage may vary.
That's looks like a fee, not a charge for "fixed costs"... although that may be what it was originally supposed to be for. I don't know. I probably don't live near you.
Well, you really do have to wonder when they say they worked through the whole night only to discover that this new, mysterious problem was caused by the updated they'd made the night before.
I mean, wow. Wouldn't that be the first thing that popped into your mind?
hopefully before they slash and burn all that the rest of us work hard to achieve...
one thing is clear about republicans, they'll back any strategy that fucks the people over...
That you have taken all this at face value, without question, is revealing. There is far more to this story.
The issue with the utilities is that they asked for those who use solar power, but are still connected to the grid, to pay their share of the fixed costs of running those utilities. This is eminently fair.
Just about every company has fixed costs and variable costs. Traditionally, this has all been rolled into one bill, at a per-kilowatt rate that covered both costs.
However, those who have solar power installations, and are either using less power (and so pay for very few kilowatts), or those who actually sell power back to the utility for use by the grid, are still using the utility, but they aren't paying for the fixed costs of that utility. Instead, other rate-payers (generally those who are poorer, and do not have the money to afford a solar installation) are forced to cover the bills.
So... those who do NOT want the utilities to charge solar users for the fixed costs, are actually advocating to shove those costs off on POORER people. Do you understand that concept?
If they really wanted to be fair, they'd charge every person hooked to the grid for their share of the fixed costs, PLUS the variable cost of how many kilowatt-hours they use. But in many places this is not currently legal. This is an attempt to FIX that problem, and actually make the charges fair again.
There is nothing evil about it. If anything, it HELPS the poor.
"you keep saying that and people who know better are going to mod you down, down, down."
Out of the 5 comments I made in this thread before your reply, I got two 5s for "insightful" and two 3s. No downs.
"they DO get direct non-ad money from google. either you are blind or stupid. or both."
Really? That isn't what TFA says. Google is paying Firefox royalties for ads and/or the searchbar. No mention was made of anything else.
"but they DO get money from google. enough people have posted links to prove it in this very thread."
Of course they do. That's what this whole thread is about.
"stop being a google supporter. this is not the thread for that."
I'm not a "Google supporter", and I've written nothing here that should cause a reasonable person to think I am. Google has done little but piss me off for years. Some of their recent antics have caused me to stop using many of their services.
"They received 90% of their total income from Google. By any reasonable definition, they were funded by Google."
No, there are many reasonable definitions of "funded" that have little if any resemblance to this.
Venture capitalists "fund" a company (invest in it). That makes them part owners.
Donations to Kickstarter "fund" the projects. Again, in a way it is an investment, or sometimes just a plain donation. (You might get something back from your investment but it isn't always true and you aren't "buying" anything from Kickstarter projects.)
Donations "fund" political campaigns.
Most uses of the word "fund" involve either donations or investments. Customers do not "fund" grocery stores, and advertisers do not "fund" newspapers.
"The question is whether you can be considered "independent" when one of the main actors in the market has that much leverage over you."
I'll repeat the question I asked elsewhere: what leverage? If anything, FIREFOX is "funding" Google, via revenue from the search box placement. They just get a royalty back from that operation. Big deal. That doesn't give Google leverage over how Firefox does their business. They didn't always get so much revenue from Google, either. If Google disappeared tomorrow, that doesn't mean Firefox would be in the red for the next fiscal year; they'd simply have to offer the deal to somebody else.
I meant to add: my own guess -- but that's all it was -- was that Mathematica was almost certainly not dependent on machine-specific floating point. Because designing it that way would not have been too bright. And "not too bright" is not a phrase often used to describe Stephen Wolfram.
"No worries at all; the intent of my post was to encourage the GP to consult documentation specific to the implied case that the Mathematica developers hadn't considered the problem."
I am GP, I "implied' no such thing, and I am really getting pretty damned weary of people on Slashdot ASSUMING I meant something I didn't even write.
My sentence begins with *IF* which is not an implication. The word "if" by itself implies nothing. And the sentence contains the word dependent.
Mathematica is not dependent on machine-specific floating-point. But using it is an option if you want the speed.
Nice that you cleared up whether that IF was true or false, but kindly keep your assumptions to yourself.
"A default installation of Firefox contains a Google search box. This means that when people want to search for something they are most likely to use that search box, which dives traffic to Google, which greatly improves Google's chance of making money from the ads associated with search results."
Okay. Fine. BUT... whenever I install a fresh version of Firefox on a machine, the first thing I do is get rid of the Google search box. It takes 3 moue clicks plus one drag and drop. It literally takes 3 seconds.
I repeat: if it weren't Google they'd be getting ad revenue from somewhere else.
People who use Firefox are, by and large, not the same group that use Chrome and Safari. They are far more likely to customize their browser, and tend to be more familiar with how to do it. (Else they likely wouldn't have installed Firefox in the first place.)
"As I see it, there are two main problems with this situation:"
Why do you consider [1] to be a problem?
Did you read TFA? The "revenue" in question here is royalties from advertisements. Many, many other people & companies get royalties from Google for advertisements. Do you claim that Google is likely to "influence" all of them, too?
It's advertising revenue. If it isn't Google, it's going to be someone else. And it doesn't give Google any "leverage".
"And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track..."
The only thing they "backed off" from was a a default setting. Big deal. IIRC, they were the first to even include that feature in their browser.
They also support -- and highly recommend -- a plugin that lets you see ALL the "3rd parties" who are tracking you when you visit a website. AFAIK there is still no other browser that offers such functionality. Not even Ghostery does the same job.
"And now they've infected the only major open source software browser out there."
How? How have they "infected" it? The only thing going on here is that they get royalties from Google ads... as do many, many other people and companies. Has Google "infected" them, too? If you run some Google ads are you "infected"?
Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google, Google isn't "giving" them the money, it's from ads, and Google's disappearance tomorrow would not make Mozilla "implode". They'd just have to advertise elsewhere.
I think you have extremely grossly overstated your case.
In what way? They're the only major "independent" browser. They're the browser that has led the field in personal privacy, security, and blocking trackers. They're the ones who put out a mobile phone OS that doesn't try to lock you in to one company's services.
I'd like to know how you think any of that is "selling out".
Slashdot Mirror
"I will keep my scientific discussions with scientifically-minded people (who do have contradictory and dissenting opinions, but can tell the difference between conspiracy theory dogmatic denialism and scientific discourse)."
This is a joke. You're doing exactly those things you accuse "deniers" of doing. It won't work. The fact is you have no scientific arguments to make. You've swallowed the kool-aid and try to hide it by calling other people names.
Have a nice day. It's been fun.
"And you'd be an idiot to think they won't silently change this in an EULA update."
You'd be an idiot to agree to this at all. But you make a good point:
This pervasive surveillance did not come about by accident. It came about by consumers (and others) agreeing to a little bit here, and a little bit there, because "it will never be used THAT way..." And of course, eventually it IS used exactly that way.
Consumers -- and citizens in general -- MUST get it through their heads that if they give away to somebody the ability to do something, including things that have the potential to steal away their privacy, eventually it will be used in just that way. History is full of such lessons.
Just don't give it to them in the first place! The potential good is far outweighed by the potential harm. As Lyndon Johnson (not one of my favorite people) said about this kind of thing: "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
This is true, not just of legislation, but of technology too. There are some ways it should not be used. If you let it, the consequences will be bad. It's that simple.
"I'm sorry, quoting a page from fringe shill sources ("Principia Scientifica International")"
You are sorry, and you don't get to ad-hominem this away.
You have to refute their science, or you are just full of hot air. Period. Once again you reinforce the point I made. You aren't arguing science, just ideology.
Come back when you have an argument against their science. Unless and until then, I reserve the right to ignore any further ad-hominems and rhetoric.
"A tiny handful of fringe wackos does not counterbalance the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the broad validity of AGW."
That's actually very funny, because in fact that is how scientific understanding USUALLY advances... a handful of questioners versus the "consensus". And before you dismiss them as "fringe wackos" you might want to look up who they are and their qualifications.
As I say: everything you've said here so far merely serves to reinforce my point. You have demonstrated the classical behavior of an ideologue, and have made no scientific argument whatever. If you really want to refute what I originally wrote, you're going to have to do much better than that.
"Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking.."
Excuse me? You are claiming that actually researching the evidence on both sides is a "lack of critical thinking"?
Have you done that? (Never mind; it's a rhetorical question.)
The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute...
No, it isn't. The major debates today are about the very fundamentals of the theory. For example, the thermodynamic basis for the greenhouse model, and whether those models were developed responsibly. Those are just a couple of examples.
"AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill."
That's funny. Because I have actually researched these issues from a scientific viewpoint, and you apparently have not. All you did was reinforce my point: ideologues don't care what the facts are. People who disagree are infidels.
Haha. It figures.
Even the merest suggestion that AGW is not gospel gets me down-rated. It's really pretty funny... the evangelists cannot stand to have anybody think critically.
"You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved? Macroevolution isn't reproducible testable science like newtonian physics or the germ theory of infection. A lot of these contrarians are just wanting that acknowledged rather than having Macroevolution presented as gospel truth."
I'll go farther than the other respondents: we've been watching species long enough now that macroevolution has been observed and documented, not just in bacteria but in macro-scale animals.
While it is true that it it is not possible to "prove" it as a theory, that's because of the way science works: NOTHING can be proved. Only disproved.
I you don't understand that, then you don't understand how science works.
"These critical viewpoints that have been injected into school curriculum for decades now probably have the side-effect of strengthening the rigor to which the study of evolution has in the end benefited."
I doubt it.
When the concept of "critical thinking" is deliberately distorted to include mythology, rather than theory, I very much doubt that pretty much any science benefits.
But then, the New York Times demonstrated its own lack of critical thinking when it conflated the theories of evolution and climate change. (Obviously, they meant the phrase "climate change" as the common euphemism for AGW.)
Regardless of your position on whether current AGW theory has merit, the similarity ends there. The theory of evolution has very consistent, strong evidence, gathered over a period of around 130 years or so. It is about as strong a theory as anything we have. "Climate change", on the other hand, is a collection of weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated. Rather like evolution was, more than 120 years ago. In addition, there is a great deal of scientific counter-evidence, which was rather lacking during the evolution debates. (Granted that there was evidence that was felt to be scientific at the time, but which has since proved false.)
Evolution is long and strong. It probably deserves to be put in textbooks representing the strongest theory we have. AGW is a lot less so; putting it in textbooks as though it were fact is... well, "premature" is a bit of an understatement.
"No not CHEAP qualified workers, I mean any qualified workers who know what a CANVAS tag is."
But I have to disagree with you here. Yes, what they want is CHEAP qualified workers. And where they're NOT finding them, is overseas.
While there are SOME qualified and reputable firms and people in "developing nations", the software job boards had become full of UN-qualified people bidding on everything in sight, claiming to be "experts", taking their up-front payments, then proving to be unqualified after all, or deliver late or not at all.
Then they just disappear, and next week they're bidding again under a different name.
More and more US firms are bringing their workforces back home, because the efficiency and expense of offshoring has proved to be simply inferior, in many cases. Over the last couple of years, more and more listings on the international software job boards have said "Australia, U.S., or Western Europe only."
Another perfectly good adjective verbified.
Oops. I just adjectivified a verb. Damn, now I just... sigh. Never mind.
Mod parent up.
The "finding" reported by OP shows very clearly that just about any person who is ignorant of the subject at hand can run through some numbers, find a valid correlation, and come up with a remarkably ridiculous conclusion.
JavaScript is common to many of today's software technologies because JavaScript is THE client-side scripting language for the Web. But by itself, it isn't going to get you much of anywhere.
"Really, because my gas, electric, water, and sewer bills all have a 'customer charge'."
Repeat: in many places it is not currently legal. Your mileage may vary.
That's looks like a fee, not a charge for "fixed costs"... although that may be what it was originally supposed to be for. I don't know. I probably don't live near you.
"BART is run by the dumbest people on Earth."
Well, you really do have to wonder when they say they worked through the whole night only to discover that this new, mysterious problem was caused by the updated they'd made the night before.
I mean, wow. Wouldn't that be the first thing that popped into your mind?
hopefully before they slash and burn all that the rest of us work hard to achieve...
one thing is clear about republicans, they'll back any strategy that fucks the people over...
That you have taken all this at face value, without question, is revealing. There is far more to this story.
The issue with the utilities is that they asked for those who use solar power, but are still connected to the grid, to pay their share of the fixed costs of running those utilities. This is eminently fair.
Just about every company has fixed costs and variable costs. Traditionally, this has all been rolled into one bill, at a per-kilowatt rate that covered both costs.
However, those who have solar power installations, and are either using less power (and so pay for very few kilowatts), or those who actually sell power back to the utility for use by the grid, are still using the utility, but they aren't paying for the fixed costs of that utility. Instead, other rate-payers (generally those who are poorer, and do not have the money to afford a solar installation) are forced to cover the bills.
So... those who do NOT want the utilities to charge solar users for the fixed costs, are actually advocating to shove those costs off on POORER people. Do you understand that concept?
If they really wanted to be fair, they'd charge every person hooked to the grid for their share of the fixed costs, PLUS the variable cost of how many kilowatt-hours they use. But in many places this is not currently legal. This is an attempt to FIX that problem, and actually make the charges fair again.
There is nothing evil about it. If anything, it HELPS the poor.
"You're right, your statements put you clearly in the shill camp."
What part of "Google pisses me off" do you not understand?
Your comment puts you in the "I don't know how to read" camp.
"you keep saying that and people who know better are going to mod you down, down, down."
Out of the 5 comments I made in this thread before your reply, I got two 5s for "insightful" and two 3s. No downs.
"they DO get direct non-ad money from google. either you are blind or stupid. or both."
Really? That isn't what TFA says. Google is paying Firefox royalties for ads and/or the searchbar. No mention was made of anything else.
"but they DO get money from google. enough people have posted links to prove it in this very thread."
Of course they do. That's what this whole thread is about.
"stop being a google supporter. this is not the thread for that."
I'm not a "Google supporter", and I've written nothing here that should cause a reasonable person to think I am. Google has done little but piss me off for years. Some of their recent antics have caused me to stop using many of their services.
I am and have been, however, a Firefox supporter.
"They received 90% of their total income from Google. By any reasonable definition, they were funded by Google."
No, there are many reasonable definitions of "funded" that have little if any resemblance to this.
Venture capitalists "fund" a company (invest in it). That makes them part owners.
Donations to Kickstarter "fund" the projects. Again, in a way it is an investment, or sometimes just a plain donation. (You might get something back from your investment but it isn't always true and you aren't "buying" anything from Kickstarter projects.)
Donations "fund" political campaigns.
Most uses of the word "fund" involve either donations or investments. Customers do not "fund" grocery stores, and advertisers do not "fund" newspapers.
"The question is whether you can be considered "independent" when one of the main actors in the market has that much leverage over you."
I'll repeat the question I asked elsewhere: what leverage? If anything, FIREFOX is "funding" Google, via revenue from the search box placement. They just get a royalty back from that operation. Big deal. That doesn't give Google leverage over how Firefox does their business. They didn't always get so much revenue from Google, either. If Google disappeared tomorrow, that doesn't mean Firefox would be in the red for the next fiscal year; they'd simply have to offer the deal to somebody else.
"If you think your behavior is anything like the majority's behavior your are ridiculously narcissistic."
Narcissistic isn't the right word. "Arrogant" might be closer to what you meant.
I meant to add: my own guess -- but that's all it was -- was that Mathematica was almost certainly not dependent on machine-specific floating point. Because designing it that way would not have been too bright. And "not too bright" is not a phrase often used to describe Stephen Wolfram.
"No worries at all; the intent of my post was to encourage the GP to consult documentation specific to the implied case that the Mathematica developers hadn't considered the problem."
I am GP, I "implied' no such thing, and I am really getting pretty damned weary of people on Slashdot ASSUMING I meant something I didn't even write.
My sentence begins with *IF* which is not an implication. The word "if" by itself implies nothing. And the sentence contains the word dependent.
Mathematica is not dependent on machine-specific floating-point. But using it is an option if you want the speed.
Nice that you cleared up whether that IF was true or false, but kindly keep your assumptions to yourself.
"Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it."
It does absolutely nothing of the sort. It breaks some companies' business models on the web. Those are not even remotely the same things.
If those companies disappeared tomorrow, the web would remain. Hell, it might even be a better place.
Repeat: they are not "funded" by Google. They have a business deal, for some ads and for a Google search bar in their browser. Big deal.
Google isn't "giving" them money, or "hiring" them in any way. And the search bar takes all of 3 seconds (I checked) to get rid of.
"A default installation of Firefox contains a Google search box. This means that when people want to search for something they are most likely to use that search box, which dives traffic to Google, which greatly improves Google's chance of making money from the ads associated with search results."
Okay. Fine. BUT... whenever I install a fresh version of Firefox on a machine, the first thing I do is get rid of the Google search box. It takes 3 moue clicks plus one drag and drop. It literally takes 3 seconds.
I repeat: if it weren't Google they'd be getting ad revenue from somewhere else.
People who use Firefox are, by and large, not the same group that use Chrome and Safari. They are far more likely to customize their browser, and tend to be more familiar with how to do it. (Else they likely wouldn't have installed Firefox in the first place.)
I simply don't see this as any kind of big issue.
"As I see it, there are two main problems with this situation:"
Why do you consider [1] to be a problem?
Did you read TFA? The "revenue" in question here is royalties from advertisements. Many, many other people & companies get royalties from Google for advertisements. Do you claim that Google is likely to "influence" all of them, too?
It's advertising revenue. If it isn't Google, it's going to be someone else. And it doesn't give Google any "leverage".
"And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track ..."
The only thing they "backed off" from was a a default setting. Big deal. IIRC, they were the first to even include that feature in their browser.
They also support -- and highly recommend -- a plugin that lets you see ALL the "3rd parties" who are tracking you when you visit a website. AFAIK there is still no other browser that offers such functionality. Not even Ghostery does the same job.
"And now they've infected the only major open source software browser out there."
How? How have they "infected" it? The only thing going on here is that they get royalties from Google ads... as do many, many other people and companies. Has Google "infected" them, too? If you run some Google ads are you "infected"?
Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google, Google isn't "giving" them the money, it's from ads, and Google's disappearance tomorrow would not make Mozilla "implode". They'd just have to advertise elsewhere.
I think you have extremely grossly overstated your case.
"They sold out a long time ago"
In what way? They're the only major "independent" browser. They're the browser that has led the field in personal privacy, security, and blocking trackers. They're the ones who put out a mobile phone OS that doesn't try to lock you in to one company's services.
I'd like to know how you think any of that is "selling out".