this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
335 points (98.8% liked)
Firefox
20357 readers
26 users here now
/c/firefox
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.
Rules
1. Adhere to the instance rules
2. Be kind to one another
3. Communicate in a civil manner
Reporting
If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is that a joke?
Control question probably, to check if you actually read the questions.
I forgot those exist and interpreted it as "Would you sacrifice performance for one of these features?"
Am I stupid?
I also thought it was a feature vs performance question. How can it be used as a control question?
By overestimating users' intelligence... classic blunder, really. 🧐
I jest, I've no idea.
Haha!
Mozilla might be insane
That's how I treated it too. I took it at face value.
I have modern hardware so I don't care too much about browser performance. All browsers perform well on my hardware. Obviously some are more lightweight and optimised, but I have no doubts about my ability to comfortably browse the web on my hardware, so all the performance questions I tended to rank in the middle (ie not most or least important) as I don't tend to notice browser performance.
Makes sense. What about those who click that option as a joke? Maybe discount all other replies from that person because of that too?
I mean, fair?
Or what if they don't click it by joke, but because they actually prefer a 2x slower browser over such a feature?
lol, yeah. 👍
I was doing a political poll just the other day and the third or fourth question was a color question like: “Which of the following is associated most with a ripe banana?”
Eh, how ripe are we talking?
I debated because I really disliked another option in there (I think it was split-screen for AI or something stupid) and it felt like it was designed to make me not rank something else I didn't like as least desired.
For me that was together with
So I don't really care how slow the browser is, as long as it doesn't have an AI "assistant" that is monitoring my browser usage
I wouldn't mind an AI assistant, as long as it's fully local.
But why? If you want that, you can just have it outside of your browser. Or maybe get an extension that works with an AI assistant on your machine.
I honestly don't care either way about an AI assistant. I don't intend to use it, so I'd much rather their efforts be spent elsewhere.
Why would you want that in a browser? We have LLMs you can run local.
Can you let me have my own preferences? Am I allowed?
Not at the cost of my experience. It should be a optional feature if anything
Agreed. If you don't want to use it it should just stay out of the way.
Yup, I stuck that as "least want." I already marked "2x faster performance" as "most want" on another question, so hopefully it all shakes out in the end.
You clearly missed the point about "privacy respecting." It will only share data with Meta, Google and the US government.
Oh, what a deal...
It's an Inferred importance method, as other users have commented it is likely that there are some calibration metrics in there. MaxDiff is the name of the approach if you want to check out more.
Wait, I swear mine said twice as fast. Well I guess I got filtered then. Lol
There were both
I had both.
Mozilla is weighting on the data. They found people love AI more than a slow browser.