cambrianentropy's comments

cambrianentropy | 4 years ago | on: My essential Firefox fixes in 2022

Hmm, not sure what else you would need.

When searching for a setting to make Firefox work like Chrome, I had found this a while back: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1223611

I basically did what was suggested there. (The 2-3 character length I suggested was just from my experience of avoiding collisions with other urls I might visit and was when I wanted to hit return when I started typing.)

Not sure if these settings matter or not. I just tried disabling a few and it doesn't seem to make a difference These are the only ones that seem relevant.

In about:preferences#search I have this enabled:

  -  Provide search suggestions
  -  Show search suggestions in address bar results
In about:preferences#privacy I have this enabled (plus a few other things):

  -  Bookmarks

cambrianentropy | 4 years ago | on: My essential Firefox fixes in 2022

I had the exact same problem! There is no configuration option to change this, and I literally kept using Chromium based browsers for years because of this.

This workaround isn't perfect, but it has allowed me to switch:

  - Bookmark the url
  - Go to Bookmarks > Manage Bookmarks > [location of your bookmark]
  - In the keywords section, put the first two or three characters (I settled on three) of the domain, so 'hac' in this case
Now when you start typing in the domain and you type those first two or three characters (or however many you want to setup), the first suggestion from firefox will be your keyworded bookmark and you can just hit enter instead of having to hit down!

Crazy how Firefox always defaults to the domain instead of the most frequently visited URL for the characters typed in, but this has worked for me.

cambrianentropy | 5 years ago | on: A Conversation with Bertrand Russell (1952) [video]

Not sure if you follow Chamath Palihapitiya but his company's annual letter had a really interesting take on this: https://www.socialcapital.com/annual-letters/2019

A new space race

A common theme amongst optimists is how much technological advance we have seen and how these advances seem to be accelerating. I am of the opposite camp and believe, roughly, that the rate of progress has been steadily declining since we landed on the moon in 1969. While I can’t explain the 1970s and 1980s, the modern Gilded Age’s lack of technological progress is easier to understand. The intellectual lobotomization of smart, young STEM talent has been an explicit strategy by Big Tech fueled by unseemly profitability and hi flying stock prices. If you can’t innovate but are wildly profitable, wouldn’t you also just pay the incremental talented engineer to work for you on anything versus working for a competitor or, worse still, work for themselves and invent something disruptive that could impact your monopoly? Of course you would...and they have.

If you were a bright, ambitious engineer graduating in STEM in the early 1960s this wasn’t the case. You went to work on something meaningful. The momentum towards spaceflight was a call to arms for the smartest and hardest working amongst us. These bright men and women worked to invent new capabilities and entire ecosystems in fuel cells, gas storage systems, thermodynamic materials, engines, mechanical timers and clocks and control systems to name a few. The cost of the entire Apollo program was $25 Billion or $150 Billion in today’s dollars.

Big Tech spent $75B on R&D in 2018 alone. Put another way, this means that in two 2018 equivalents of R&D spending, Big Tech could have sent people to the moon and back. It's fair to say, however, that what we have witnessed instead can graciously be described as something less ambitious and impactful than that.

This misallocation of capital won’t end until we demand it - every government, regulator and individual now has a role to play whether you know it or not.

page 1