Here are some of the things that make Firefox the best browser for me:
- An extension system more powerful than Chrome's, which supports for example rich adblockers that can block ads on Youtube. Also, it works on mobile, too
- Many sophisticated productivity, privacy, and tab management features such as vertical tabs, tab groups, container tabs, split tabs, etc. And now it also has easy-to-use profiles and PWA support just like Chrome
- A sync system which is ALWAYS end-to-end encrypted, and doesn't leak your browsing data or saved credentials if you configure it wrong, like Google's does, and it of course works on mobile too
- And yes, LLM-assisted summarization, translation, tab grouping, etc, most of which works entirely offline with local LLMs and no cloud interation, although there are some cloud enabled features as well
My favourite feature is userChrome. The default chrome sucks in both Chrome and Firefox, but at least Firefox allows me to customize it to my liking without forking the entire browser.
On the flip side, changing keybinds in Firefox requires forking, but the defaults aren't too bad.
I think finding an upper bound is basically just as difficult as finding the actual value itself, since both would require proving that all of the programs which run longer than that will run forever. That's why we can say BB(x) grows faster than any computable function. Being able to compute BB(x) algorithmically or any faster growing function would let you solve the halting problem
Not sure if this is a joke, but actually that is guaranteed to be true. It is proven that for all n: BB(n+1) >= BB(n) + 3. But it is not proven that BB(n+1) >= BB(n) + 4, haha.
The point stands: the hard part is proving that all the programs with longer runtime than your upper bound will never terminate, and once you've solved that, getting the exact value is just a little extra work
For arbitrary n, that proof is arbitrarily hard, even undecidable for large enough n. Again though, for the specific case n=6, that difficulty has not yet been demonstrated, especially if you're willing to accept probabilistic arguments instead of rigorous proofs. n-by-n checkers is PSPACE-complete but the specific case n=8 that people actually play, has been completely solved using computers.
> Of course, the user who named those files probably wants file-9.txt to come before file-10.txt. But 1 is smaller than 9, so file-10.txt should be first in alphabetical order. Everyone understands that, and soon people learn to put enough leading zeros if they want their files to stay sorted the way they like. Well, apparently all these operating systems have decided that no, users are too dumb and they cannot possibly understand what alphabetical order means. So when you ask them to sort your files alphabetically, they don’t. Instead, they decide that if some piece of the file name is a number, the real numerical value must be used.
I think there are many things wrong with your assessment of the situation.
First, where does it say in these file managers that they're sorting by alphabetical order? I see that you've specified that you want the files sorted by name, but I don't see that you've specified you want them sorted by name alphabetically. And what does "alphabetical sort" even mean when you're sorting characters which are not letters? What you mean is probably "lexicographical sort".
Second, you admit yourself that users probably want natural sort. Why would you expect these products to do the thing which they know users usually don't want by default? That just seems like bad design to me. They know users usually want natural sort, and you know users usually want natural sort, so why would you expect the default behaviour to be a lexicographical sort?
Third, just like how you've learned to work around the lack of natural sort in poorly designed products of years past by adding leading zeroes, you can just add trailing zeroes to get the lexicographical ordering that you want. Why do you seem to be implying that the latter is more user-hostile than the former? It doesn't make sense to me. A decision had to be made about what sort to use and they picked the one that most people want. Isn't that what we should be expecting in a product that caters to its users?
I see in other comments you've suggested that there should be a separate option for choosing between lexicographical sort and natural sort. But in the past, when lexicographical sort was the only option, why weren't you complaining about it being user-hostile to only have one option then? Why is it only when the default is something you're personally not used to that it warrants complaint? And where do we stop, do we have separate controls for every single sortable string field to determine whether it should be sorted lexicographically or naturally? Or just the name field? Don't you think that is going to lead to interface bloat?
Steam achievements say that 90% of players have beaten the tutorial and 40% have beaten act 2, so while it's not the "vast" majority, it is true that the majority of players never made it to act 3.
- An extension system more powerful than Chrome's, which supports for example rich adblockers that can block ads on Youtube. Also, it works on mobile, too
- Many sophisticated productivity, privacy, and tab management features such as vertical tabs, tab groups, container tabs, split tabs, etc. And now it also has easy-to-use profiles and PWA support just like Chrome
- A sync system which is ALWAYS end-to-end encrypted, and doesn't leak your browsing data or saved credentials if you configure it wrong, like Google's does, and it of course works on mobile too
- And yes, LLM-assisted summarization, translation, tab grouping, etc, most of which works entirely offline with local LLMs and no cloud interation, although there are some cloud enabled features as well