> It seems like most of the times, the result is a higher price for the customer, at least when things go well.
Can you substantiate this claim?
With the vast majority of goods the price is set by the market, i.e. higher wages would indeed result in a smaller profit margin and not in a higher price.
It could be either. In most cases it is likely both (shrinking margins, higher prices).
The price is determined by the market. But there’s a demand curve. There are many prices that an item could sell at, with varying numbers of buyers at each price.
In a highly competitive market, the price should be driven down close to the cost of production. This allows the most people to buy at the lowest possible price, at the expense of retailer margins.
Amazon probably has the best cost structure of online retailers. Which means in many cases they are setting the floor on the price. If their labor costs go up enough to wipe out their margins, their prices must go up, or they must exit the market for highly competitive items. With less competition, other retailers have more leeway to increase prices.
As a society we may decide it is worth paying more for goods to ensure a fair living wage and safe working conditions. That doesn’t sound unreasonable. But to assume you can get that without increasing prices is naive.
I'd like to point out that amazon is making ginormous profits, meaning increasing wages and ensuring safe working conditions would hardly make a dent in amazons revenue.
Does Amazon retail make ginormous profits? Genuine question. I googled for a few minutes but, given the way the company is structured with regards to AWS, it doesn't seem simple (possible?) for an outsider to determine the margins on their retail operations.
The contributor list ain't list at all. It's an immutable collection.
I am so happy to see that not one but a couple of those names are my colleagues. They send patches to clojure.core. I send comments to HN :). I'm proud of them, I hope they proud of me too.
1) Videostreams are way smoother using Chrome, at least on Linux.
2) I've enabled Emacs Input in Gnome. When I enter something in the address bar, both Firefox and Chrome show suggestions for websites below. In Chrome I can type Ctrl+n / Ctrl+p to navigate between the suggestions, because it respects my keyboard schema.
In Firefox this opens new browser windows :( and I've found absolutely no way to change this behaviour.
No, I'm using gnome-shell which uses mutter as wm.
But using gnome tweaks you can enable Emacs Input, which if you are used to emacs key bindings, is really handy navigating in gnome-terminal or, as mentioned web browser address bars.
We don't replace ads on publisher sites without that publisher as partner; they get 70% of the gross revenue, user gets 15%.
No point repeating something you heard a while ago from the NAA when they wrote a "Cease and Desist" letter to us that did not contain those words (because we weren't doing anything to cease or desist). All our opt-in models require consent.
User-private ads go in user-owned channels (notifications and tabs), not in publisher inventory, if the user opts in. User gets 70%.
You've given them the choice of not monetizing their content or paying you. It's the slimy Mafia business model. There is nothing decentralized about this.
Over 23,000 creators verified but we do not list without consent. You can see verified status in the Payments panel in settings after taking a free token grant to fund your wallet.
From user tweets, people notice washingtonpost.com, theguardian.com, vice.com, other bigs have verfied. From our own announcements, Dow Jones Media Group, Town Square Media, and more to come.
In 2016 we proposed that Brave, a browser, could allow users and publishers to get better revenue through a private ad model that does not entail any tracking or user data in the clear on servers. We ran some placeholder ads to show the concept off. These are disabled now.
This caused a reaction. The letter we got (I mentioned it in my last comment) from a publisher group asserted that the publishers own copyright and trademark on third-party ads on their sites. This was comical in view of malware getting on the New York Times, BBC Online, AOL and other sites the month before (March 2016). Publishers do not own (c) or (tm) on any ads they don't create, of course -- certainly not on so-called third party ads, especially malware. Or they'd be liable.
Anyway, baseline Brave is just a top-speed (better than using JS in extension code) blocker by default. All token options are optional, users and (if involved) publishers choose.
Manuel Araoz did a very early benchmark, one site, where we beat uBO. I don't cite it as fresh or large-N/controlled, but Manuel noticed and asked why. The reason is extensions must be in JS, in API and process sandboxes. uBO does great, uses the chromium extension background page facility to share code among tabs, but still must use JS. C++ beats JS. Also, we block ASAP in the network threads, in the browser "kernel" process. That helps win too.
If anyone wants to benchmark, results welcome, but we do not view uBO on Chrome as competition -- rather we cooperate on blocking tech where we can with @gorhill et al. We are out to take unblocked Chrome user share.
Thank you for the clarification! Do you know how much time is lost between the time a request is handled by the kernel in C++ and the time it would trigger a callback of the web request API? In other words, what is the overhead of the JS API compared to the raw C++ API?
I understand that you are not competing with uBlock. But I’m always a bit sceptical when I read that it’s faster because it’s C++. Since it is not necessarily true and some measurement is needed before being able to reach this conclusion. I understand though that blocking from the network gives some (constant factor?) advantage compared to a JavaScript extension.
I don't have measurements, as noted (others should chime in), but it matters not only in time to get to extension page process or tab process -- C++ in same process vs. JS after C++ across process boundary matters in memory use terms too, direct (allocation) and indirect (cache effects).
I've been doing browsers since JS was super-slow, advocated its use in Mozilla XUL UX back in the day without it being an issue _per se_, watched JITting JS engines make it even less of an issue for such 10Hz or even 60fps deadlines when done right -- but C++ over JS and in same process vs. multiprocess matters for blocking, due in large part to how many requests there are, and how they affect page rendering.
We are benchmarking again now that we have staff, so I'll try to update here if I do get any results. I don't believe we are yet testing vs. uBO+Chrome, though, for the reason given. We are allies.
Note that browsers already do the mechanics of inserting ads today, unless the ad is a fixed element on the served page, which is quite rare. Even then, to pay, ads need confirmation tracking if not target tracking before placement by scripts.
In this sense, all browsers insert the vast majority of ads today. Intermediary businesses insert scripts before, during, and after ads too. Browsers and extensions may block scripts.
The part of the ad ecosystem that Brave transposes to the browser, again if and only if each user and (if in the deal: ad slot in page, not in user space) publisher agrees, is the matching of ad to context including user interest, and the attribution and confirmation of ad view or interaction. This is done without any tracking or user data on servers — including our servers. Also no user fingerprinting on any blockchain, it is super-important to avoid this.
How matching works: if you opt into the ad system, you get a catalog, same as everyone gets in a large region speaking the same natural language. The catalog lists edge url and metadata on each ad or offer. It compresses well and slowly updates. Downloading it or updating it with new ad deals for all in the region/language does not identify you. We have started with global/English for trials.
Local machine learning studies local data, again only if you opt in. This agent sees the sum of all user inputs to the browser: search queries (you own your query log — the search engine does not and the agent does not scrape search results, just user inputs and navigation); e-commerce form filling and buying; social graph edges from you to your friends; tab and window constellations; scrolling on actually viewed content.
With our secret-key cross device sync option, your data can be a full cross device view of your browsing, and only you have the key to decrypt this data. We cannot see it, we see only encrypted blobs in cloud storage. QR code and camera pairing with secret key as wordlist are what you see and do, to use Brave Sync (user testing soon).
Say you are shopping for a new camera during lunch, but on most days go back to work after lunch. The agent knows this and does not bug you too soon. But later, after work, when you are idle, an OS notification floats a brief call to action ad (like a search ad, a few lines of text and minimal image branding). This self dismisses but you can find it in Brave. If you click the View button, Brave is focused if not already and a new tab opens with a full landing page ad or offer.
You can thumbs-down on the ad if it didn’t work. You can close the tab whenever you like. You are not identified to the ad’s brand or any other party by opening tab — Brave shields are still up. But if you like the ad, you can act on it. You get 70% of the gross, which can be large for lead-gen ads such as making a test drive appointment with a car dealer.
Publisher ads work similarly and can even place just based on page context, not on any local user data. We always give the ad space owner 70%. We always pay the user >= what we make.
If you just form an impression, view a video by quartiles, even click on a download button for an app, or open further pages, you are not identified. Chaum blind certificates attest to your ad actions but without any user identifier. We already use the ANONIZE protocol for anonymous contributions to your top sites and YouTube accounts.
In no case do you identify to any party, including us, as a tracked user — unless you choose to, in a clear page in tab aka first party setting.
The first time I heard of Brave, I thought Oh cool, a privacy focused, chromium based browser. But I must say I'm honestly appalled by its parasitic business model.
Content creators are strong armed into becoming verified publishers, while users have to trust Brave that their data is handled properly and carefully.
What're you talking about? Their content creator program is completely voluntary, and their business model (and the Basic Attention Token) is designed to serve content creators, and is not driven by ads or data collection (like Chrome is).
Brave is the only hope I see for a strictly "privacy-by-default" browser, which is not powered by an ad-based business model. Brendan Eich isn't a dumbell, he knows what is wrong with broswer-based privacy and what needs fixing.
PS: I use Brave on Android and the experience has been better than Chrome.
Brave has multiple layers to actually help content-creators. It is beyond me how anyone can frame it in the opposite direction.
Layer 1: Blocking everything that is not helpful for the user (i.e. being a browser that is a user-agent first and foremost), thus doing essentially the same as content-blocking extensions or other content-blocking browsers (Opera mini, UC)
In this way, there is nothing to be outraged about, since this is a reaction to a complete lack of respect for human dignity and the state of the web on the side of the publishers. The only thing that is parasitic are the ad-networks that pray on vulnerable people. It is easy to overlook that for years browsers have ignored the user so that many gullible people nowadays think that this is how things are supposed to be, but just like ad-tech, users can lobby against the state of things with chosing their software.
Layer 2: Allowing privacy-friendly ads, as opt-in, to help publishers get money and get free from the parasitic ad-networks at the same time
Layer 3: A future-proof patreon like payment network to help publishers survive the ad-backlash, and connect readers and publishers on a new, voluntary, respectful level while also being privacy-friendly.
Honestly I can't see how anything of this is problematic for anyone, except for Brave's rivals (Google, Facebook, Criteo, etc.)
I believe most of the FUD is, in fact, coming from those rivals.
Brave proposes cutting out a bunch of middlemen through the token market and making the browser something like an anticheat system: opt in and it does its best to serve quality ads while preventing click fraud.
There are a lot of details in the execution that matter to make this competitive, but the basic idea resolves many of the current conflicts of interest that make adtech a miserable market.
It's astounding how many willing employees Google has to comment voluntarily, out of their own awe of the mothership, in favor of anything Alphabet does. They're so many, it's like machine learning, Google barely has to try or know what's going on.
I always have to remind myself how poisoned the well of tech commentary has become with behemoths like FB, GOOG, AMZN.
We don't even have ads out of user trials or paying yet, so he was not dishonest. Ads are opt-in, we have to win users over to get any revenue share to us -- and it's always <= what the user gets.
Note how we take a much smaller (Patreon sized) 5% off the anonized contribution flow, so if we had enough ad-averse users contributing, we'd be ok just on that basis. It's not all about ads, but no one can count out ads right now -- $100B gross spend in US this year on digital advertising!
While I "technically" have a conflict of interest, when brave launched I had some concerns about how and when creators were paid, and the responses amounted to brave stealing from them unless they signed up.
Unlike patreon (or Google contributor), if the page doesn't sign up, brave still replaces the ads, but they end up keeping the money.
In those cases, their business model is much closer to a Comcast than an uBlock, and it certainly appears like strong arming creators/sites into joining, or forcing them to forgo revenue and donate it to the browser. If you can't see why that would be upsetting to content creators, idk.
I think there are some subtle, but important, differences though.
Brave users by default block all ads. So those users won't see the ads on content creators sites anyway. Content creators shouldn't feel outraged towards those more than they can feel outraged about any other ad-blocking users.
Some of those Brave users might opt-in for ads that are promised not to compromise their privacy.
So I totally understand that some creators might feel strong-armed if they already use ads. But they shouldn't feel any worse than when faced with ad-blocking users. They do have the chance to opt-in and rely on privacy-respecting ads and get some revenue that they otherwise wouldn't get.
I guess if there was an alternative ad model that was less intrusive, and content creators relied on it, they might have a much stronger reason to be upset. I'm not aware of many creators that use privacy-friendly ads, and it seems like Brave is at least attempting to create this model?
No affiliation with Brave whatsoever. Only found out about it a couple of weeks ago.
Assuming I'm a creator, the ussue is that brave is monetizing my content and I get nothing unless I opt in to brave, instead of the system that I already have set up to monetize myself.
Ad blockers don't make money by replacing the ads. Brave does. That's why it's more similar to an isp hijacking ads than ad blocking, it's just happening in the browser instead of in the network.
Brave isn't making money if its users choose to block ads.
Users now have the choice to make money from opting-in to ads. But only ads that protect their privacy. Brave enables this, and takes a smaller cut than the user.
Sites choosing to monetize themselves are doing so at the expense of the user, whose privacy is compromised in the process.
I don't think Brave or the User is hijacking things here more than you can say that monetizing sites are hijacking user privacy.
Monetizing sites don't give the user the option to pay for content via other means, or ads that protect their privacy (or even the awareness of what transaction takes place). At least Brave and its users are giving sites the option to get revenue here (revenue that otherwise would be lost if users opt for ad-blocking instead).
N.B. Looking at [0], Brendan Eich stated that "We don't replace ads on publisher sites without that publisher as partner; they get 70% of the
gross revenue, user gets 15%.".
>Brave isn't making money if its users choose to block ads.
Correct. I don't disagree at all with this statement. In the context of just blocking ads, Brave is doing approximately the same thing as any number of other browsers or ad blockers which aren't really objectionable.
>Sites choosing to monetize themselves are doing so at the expense of the user, whose privacy is compromised in the process.
Sure, ok.
>Sites choosing to monetize themselves are doing so at the expense of the user, whose privacy is compromised in the process.
If as Eich claims, they have permission from all publishers, than this is more ok. But if not, the difference is that in one case, the reader, the ad company, and the publisher all get something of value (an article, money & data, money respectively). But if Brave is actually replacing ads without publisher consent, then the user and brave get something of value, and the publisher gets nothing.
>Monetizing sites don't give the user the option to pay for content via other means, or ads that protect their privacy (or even the awareness of what transaction takes place). At least Brave and its users are giving sites the option to get revenue here (revenue that otherwise would be lost if users opt for ad-blocking instead).
Depends, Brave actually explored an option to monetize in a patreon like fashion [0]. Which sounds great, but there's a huge caveat that makes me less inclined to believe Eich elsewhere. Specifically, The "Payments" tool allows any user to donate to any creator or site. Then Brave sends an email to the webmaster address for that internet site (which often doesn't match the publisher: think subdomains). Then, if people continue donating and the site owner never registers, brave will eventually just keep any money donated to the site[1].
In other words, if I run a popular hosted blog (yes these exist, and are probably some of the best candidates for patreon-like funding), I can't actually get verified because I don't control the DNS records for my site, and I will have to sit back and watch as people unknowingly donate money to Brave instead of me.
They then market this as
>Brave even lets you contribute to your favorite creators automatically
What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get "rewarded with BAT's accordingly to the users attention" ?
Btw, I'm guessing you are a Brave employee, that many Buzzwords in one comment would otherwise be quite astonishing, how does Brave guarantee a users privacy? I assume brave "phones home" in order to replace ads with ads Brave gets compensated for.
Also, I read a lot about a transparent way funds are distributed among publishers, where is the code?
I just see the potential, and want Brave to succeed.
> "What happens to the small sites that don't track users, but display some ads to keep the servers running? Hope that they get "rewarded with BAT's accordingly to the users attention" ?"
What happens to them nowadays, now that most users block ads? They struggle, and they will continue struggling. Brave won't change any of that.
The brilliance of creating a utility token like BAT is so that the creator (Brave) can get rich off speculation, and a horde of people will defend the creator online because they have a couple bucks invested.
It's one of the most insufferable parts of anything to do with cryptocurrency and it's why it's hard to have honest discussion.
I certainly don't think it's necessary nor useful to try and label you as a shill. It's just that BAT is one of the reasons why it's hard to take Brave seriously, and it's why you shouldn't be so dismissive of people who raise issues with Brave much less call them shills of ad-tech or rival browsers (as you did).
Layer 3 implies that there is some system that tracks user to reward content creator according. How is this not a tracking system?
Without knowing the implementation details it looks like Brave is (1) removing all the competition, (2) except the ones that play nice, (3) force content creators to buy into their system.
I think it's good that they are trying to find a solution for content creators to monetize their content. Instead on making suppositions on the OP, why not address those points? Why is using Brave not like building the tracking even further into the browser?
You can assume whatever you want, but arguing that people who disagree with you have ties to the ad-tech business is explicitly prohibited by the site guidelines.
Why I never use it. I will always stick to Firefox. Firefox has yet to irritate me. A few plugins here or there is not as awful as most of what Google does.
Besides if I REALLY wanted to I could run one of the GPL forks of Firefox. They may be dated after a while but they work usually.
Edit: I meant to say GNU forks like IceWeasel and GNU IceCat which are licensed as GPL usually. There's other forks too.
It's GPL compatible, and I wrote GPL instead of GNU. There's IceWeasel which is a Debian fork of Firefox to debrand it from all the Firefox trademarks and logos.
I don't know much about this browser, but I'm finding it strange that multiple accounts are describing it using the same adjective ("parasitic") without actually explaining what it does.
Brave blocks third-party ads and trackers (which are not only harmful to users, but often make up more than 50% of all data loaded).
Brave is testing an optional digital advertising model which operates via local (on the user's device) machine-learning to match ads. If a user opts into this component, they will earn up to 70% of the ad revenue.
In the future we will offer publishers (websites) the ability to partner, permitting Brave to display ads on their pages. In this arrangement, publishers will receive 70% of the ad-revenue (far better deal than what most see today), and users will receive 15% for their attention.
In either model, the user must first consent to see ads.
I'm not sure how that post is misleading. And your responses are either evasive or does not contradict what is originally being claimed.
>Brave blocks third-party ads and trackers (which are not only harmful to users, but often make up more than 50% of all data loaded).
Considering "replacing" ads involve removing the original ones, I'm not sure how this this disproves mswift42's post
>Brave is testing an optional digital advertising model which operates via local (on the user's device) machine-learning to match ads. If a user opts into this component, they will earn up to 70% of the ad revenue.
>In the future we will offer publishers (websites) the ability to partner, permitting Brave to display ads on their pages. In this arrangement, publishers will receive 70% of the ad-revenue (far better deal than what most see today), and users will receive 15% for their attention.
There's still 30% and 15% left, respectively in those examples. Is brave taking any % of that? if so, they're making money off of replaced ads.
>In either model, the user must first consent to see ads.
I fail to see how consent is relevant to a post about what Brave's business model is, especially one that's making a statement without any moral judgement.
shows the token holders pie chart. We have the UGP+reserves largest account, 23% of all tokens. Not a majority. Bittrex liquidity pool is second. Other accounts, which we do not own, total over 70,000.
Stupid lie, easily disproven, onlookers educated. But I recall USENET trolling, and miss it compared to the low HN version.
Thanks for the correction. It's not a majority (unless some of the other wallets are also you) but a plurality by a wide margin. The point still stands.
Oh come on! "Hoarding a majority" and "scam". You were corrected and ack'ed the point grudgingly (as if 23% is enough to do more than dump the price if we sold fast, which we will not - this pool is for the users & creators, to drive growth). Have the decency to retract the false claim cleanly.
> No, you weaseled to "plurality" as if that mattered.
By a wide margin. Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it? Selling all of it would drop the price but not enough to keep the plurality owners from getting rich. Claiming that just because it's half as much hording as I incorrectly claimed (and quickly and happily corrected) makes it OK just shows another example of your poor ethics.
It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains.
> It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do.
This sentence, even in isolation, shows a complete lack of self-awareness.
And here we loop back to a stupid, trollish claim that at least can be refuted: "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web.
We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising.
If this is your limit on arguing to justify slurs, find a new hobby. It's boring and it makes you look silly or envious.
The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly. To work the order book in the face of falling liquidity would require some buyers who do not see the project risk. And I'd be out of job, and I am not independently wealthy and wouldn't be on good odds after trying such a stunt.
Enough for onlookers. Now go do something better! Note how I did not call you a fool yet. There's still hope, if you stop the foolish, self-defeating and easily falsified comments.
> "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web.
I never claimed otherwise. Ad blocking is completely legal.
> We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising.
Sub-40% of what? People care about the actual money they're being paid, not revenue shares of different-sized pies.
That's all beside the point though. You hold the publishers over the barrel, so they have no choice but to accept your terms, whatever they may be. You're exactly like a piracy service that offers content to users for free and then offers to pay the content owners in a token owned by the piracy service.
> The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly
You're obviously going to sell what you have, slowly at first for income, and faster when your scam fails.
1. We have too little share to "hold publishers over a barrel"
2. Glad you agree users have right to block, so no one is holding anyone over a barrel -- we could just let publishers get nothing. Would you retract "scam" then? Argue consistently for a change.
3. You have not in any event supported "scam". Look the word up! If you mean we are "extorting", see 2. Our users want to support their sites, we help them. This is all found money above the zero that users by right to adblock leave publishers with today. Get it?
I'm done replying; almost all onlookers are way smarter than you and they have enough info to see through your slurs. Plus, the indentation level is too deep!
Thanks, and for the "please". Always good to keep your cool. This troll pops off with "scam" and then throws "lack of self awareness", which may be typical on HN, but in my youth and in person, it would quickly lead to a fight.
People need to get out from behind computers and interact f2f more.
"It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains."
But we are not stealing from publishers, per your own agreement that users have the right to block ads. You are contradicting yourself. Anyway, this does not justify "scam", which is not the same word as "theft" if noun or "steal" if verb. Duh!
How tokens "leverage" anything (no debt, no forward market, no speculation) is beyond me, but save it.
I followed your previous link. The link immediately above is to a newer post (14 minute ago) than the one from you to which I was replying. No time travel on HN.
"Scam" (glad you looked it up) means "a dishonest scheme; swindle", i.e., someone was deceived. Whom did we deceive? You keep abusing it to mean extortion or theft, while admitting users can block without compensating anyone.
Reminder: we don't put ads on pages unless the particular publisher partners and the user agrees. No one is deceived. Since our baseline mode is just blocking, no one is owed, either.
I read every one of your comments. When you link to something I was supposed to have read before the prior reply from me to which you are responding, it's customary to link to the earlier in thread, or root of subthread -- not to your latest.
As for "dense", you still don't employ "scam" by its meaning, even after citing that meaning -- and you contradict yourself about users' right to block ads and right to donate. If users do not owe publishers anything in lieu of ad blocking, but we help users anonymously route tokens to publishers anyway, who is scammed? Answer directly.
The link was for the comment to respond to. This argument about commenting custom is completely uninteresting and off-topic. I'm leaving this as a courtesy, so you can try to think from someone else's perspective. I sincerely hope it will help you with other problems in your life.
I am simply trying, with no small frustration, to keep the discussion in one thread to make it easy to follow.
I'm not the one making threats of physical violence or calling someone a troll for making the same criticism that many others (including the newspaper industry) have made, a criticism that remains unanswered except with disingenuous deflections about "40%" rev share of smaller pies.
Oh, you mean my "when I was young" remark? Don't be dense, that is a memory not a threat. On the other hand, if you were in a f2f situation, you'd behave better than you are here. Give it some thought.
40% was not disingenous (we pay 70%, so you seem confused; again). It was to show that Brave users can more than pay for the cost of their ad blocking. When has a "scam" improved revenue to publishers who lost it to users, whom you agree have the right to block ads? Don't bother torturing "scam" further.
Your first comment is a bit misleading; Brave blocks third-party ads and trackers by default. You don't have to give BAT to anybody for this functionality—it's our baseline.
We block third-party ads and trackers because they have been leverage to spread malware, inject crypto-mining scripts into pages, push malicious extension onto unsuspecting users, and more. Not to mention, the entire model of unannounced tracking is in stark contrast to GDPR and relevant legislation.
The user ought to be sovereign over their machine, their experience, and their data. That is what Brave believes.
We understand that blocking ads and trackers will result in some impact to many websites. It is for this reason we created the User Growth Pool during our token sale, setting aside 300M Basic Attention Tokens.
For several months we have been channeling the UGP funds into the wallets of content creators. We do this via regular, monthly grants to users (which wind up going to their top sites), referral links which pay $5 in BAT for every user you bring to the Brave platform, contests (such as our 100K BAT giveaway), and more.
We understand that has helpful as the UGP is, it won't be there forever. As such, the web needs to be sustained by some other means. This is why we're developing Brave Ads.
Brave Ads is a completely-opt-in digital advertising model which doesn't leak private data, doesn't reward fraudsters and scammers, and doesn't put Brave in any position to abuse your trust as a user.
With Brave Ads, consenting users will benefit from local (on your device) machine-learning, which uses it's knowledge of the user to select the best ads to display. The ML operates off of local data, meaning nothing is sent out to third parties, and Brave isn't collecting personal information about you.
If the user consents to seeing ads, they will also collect up to 70% of the ad revenue. Users will finally get paid for their attention; they've had their attention stolen from them for far too long.
As I stated earlier though, all of this is optional. If you choose not to participate in Brave Ads, you still get a solid ad-and-tracker blocker in Brave. And you still get the option to directly support your favorite content creators out of your own pocket.
Many programming languages seem as though they are designed to force the programmer to be "safe", Rust's borrow checker is an example, but so is basically every GC-language ever. What Jon means by "designed for good programmers" is that the language design doesn't have this mindset that it needs to prevent the programmers from harming themselves, and instead focuses on allowing people who know what they're doing to be more productive doing it.
In JAI you own the code, the data, the build system, everything. JAI runs at compile time, so you can introspect your code and generate custom builds or generate custom files, or structures, like dictionaries of similarly named functions.
JAI doesn't implement abstractions (like objects or a GC) that might get in your way. JAI supports gradual refactoring and you can change your mind about the way memory is layed out ("AOS" (structs of arrays), delegates), and still use the same code. Want to shoot yourself in the foot with uninitialized variables? Fine!
In general, if you know what you are doing, JAI will allow it. JAI is similar to C in spirit, but C is a rather poor implementation in comparison.
Doesn't even try to prevent mistakes that a good programmer would avoid anyway.
For instance, C++ has operator overloading, which when misused leads do horrible, unreadable code. Still, the feature can be useful in some cases (vector/matrix library comes to mind). Java on the other hand avoids this feature because it doesn't trust the programmers with it.
As for JAI, it mostly means Jonathan Blow and his peers. I mean, he's obviously making a language for himself and whoever he hires. There's no point in catering to a different, wider audience. (The reason there's no point is because he doesn't need a whole ecosystem to support his language. He's trying to make it worth the effort even if he was the sole user.)
get_iplayer is certainly more powerful than nip. However, afaik you cannot search for programmes by category with get_iplayer, which you can do with nip.
alan@hal:~$ get-iplayer --help | grep category
--category <string> Narrow search to matched categories (comma-separated regex list). Defaults to substring match. Only works with --history.
--exclude-category <string> Narrow search to exclude matched categories (comma-separated regex list). Defaults to substring match. Only works with --history.
Can you substantiate this claim?
With the vast majority of goods the price is set by the market, i.e. higher wages would indeed result in a smaller profit margin and not in a higher price.