I'm not saying adopt Chrome as your main browser, I'm saying if Chrome alone has unique feature you think you might need, try it there. For example that allowed me to discover https://github.com/ArcaneNibble/awawausb
Consequently if you are curious about vertical tabs, do try it, even in a container, e.g. Webtop, if you want to be extra safe. I'm not suggesting to switch.
Firefox is main browser, on desktop and mobile, and I'm not changing that.
Still, I do have Chromium installed for very specific usages, e.g. WebXR tests, WebBT and WebUSB devices, e.g. flashing keyboard firmware, controlling Lego bricks, etc. I'd rather only have Firefox to be clear but some things are not supported, marked as not planned, and I believe using Chromium on specific Websites, not for browsing, is perfectly fine when no alternative is available.
Good, it means we will be forced to move on to better alternatives. No more fallback to the "old" we are used to and thus have a hard time giving up on.
I professionally do both, namely I get paid to develop free software but I also pay free software developers, e.g. https://gcompris.net/ via their https://www.patreon.com/animtim . I also until recently worked in a public institution and was paid to write free software.
I think it is important not to conflate free software with free of cost and indeed free of production. Free software developers, like me, need to pay their bills but that does NOT have to be opposed to your freedom in using and modifying that software. By implying a false dichotomy by software being either proprietary or funded somehow you are in fact sadly promoting proprietary software, please do not do that.
A VR headset is basically a phone with lenses, so yes. That's why cardboard and free promotional gifts of lenses snapping on phones work.
My point though isn't about the technical abilities but rather about the social expectations. If you buy a device that does something intrusive but you know that in order to deliver the main value it will do that, it's OK. It's part of the social contract. If somehow though a device is intrusive but it's not expected, either because it was thought to be impossible to do or unrelated to it's original purpose or both, then it's a big problem, a breach of the social contract.
Arguably that's a bit difference because to do that you have to explicitly do it (room setup) and you view the result (visual preview with semi-transparent triangles over your place). You can also read the ToS and I believe in some case specify if you allow the information to be sent back to the Meta. I'm not saying it's OK, only that it's explicit and it's part of the "normal" usage of the device.
Yes, RISC-V isn't used at scale in data centers. Now though that NEW criteria are taking into account, namely sovereignty, they precisely might despite their limitations, including performances. If though it's just political signalling without any actual will and subsequent advantage and in reality only performance matters, they still won't be used.
Because those components are (theoretically) sold as equivalent. If you sell me cycles in a data center, one for 10e/h and another for 100e/h (because it's 10x slower and thus must have ~10x more instances) and you don't give me any details on why, I'll take the 10e and of course it won't be competitive. FWIW I do buy compute time in data centers and I'm also aware (but not involved with) https://www.top500.org/ and how none of them are RISC-V based, it's not my point. My point is that the metrics to compare will never make it competitive if we exclude its raison d'etre. RISC-V was never proposed to be the most efficient and powerful architecture (even though of course it'd be nice if it'd be).
It's like apple versus orange then complaining that the apple doesn't taste orange-like enough. Sure, that's correct, but also pointless.
Edit : it's not an "anecdote" it's a proof of existence, again RISC-V works today. It's not set of blueprints. It does compute, easy as that.
Depends entirely on the metrics you use for comparison. In terms of performances yes of course it's slower than others, nobody is contesting that. In terms of openness it fairs better than most. My point was solely that it's usable for some use cases and thus that it's not a theoretical architecture in 2026. It works. Yes it's slow but for use use cases it doesn't matter.
If you don't care for openness then it's not competitive. Being competitive depends entirely on your constraints.
Nothing because it depends on the workload? I mean if you run a static Website to few people it's more than enough. If you're trying to predict weather or render high definition 3D graphics in real-time it's not... but also nothing is so...
Was it a rhetorical question and if so what were you implying?
Eh... what? I have a RISC-V SBC and it just works, running Debian on it in minutes of setup and it cost me peanuts.
Sure it's not a state of the art CPU ... and if I wanted to run anything demanding on it, I'd have to be patient. Heck it's not even made in the EU but in China... but it works, today, it just depends on what your workload is. So yes it's not the fastest or has the best efficiency but still, it exists already.
Can you train it better than anything already available on model zoos for free though? If not then beside learning I dont see the point.