I did not come to any conclusion. I called out a baseless claim.
A few pints about Ladybird:
* It's an awesome project, and they appear to be pretty efficient.
* Greenfield projects always move faster than big codebases that are 30 years old.
* Bigger teams always have more overhead than smaller teams.
* Ladybird only does a small fraction of the things Firefox does. It's an important fraction, but still a small one.
* The Ladybird GitHub repository has 1.3k contributors. Not sure where the number 10 comes from.
* Only part of the people at Mozilla are engineers working on Firefox. There's also management, legal, marketing, HR and all the other folks you need to run a corporation. There's also engineers working on other products, backend services and infrastructure not required by Ladybird in its current stage.
None of the points above are quantitative, so Ladybird and Firefox are also hard to compare. I personally do think the Firefox org at Mozilla is pretty efficient for what it is; not based on the points above, but rather based on having worked at Mozilla for more than six years.
How did you come to the conclusion that 750 people is a lot to build a web browser? The Chrome-adjacent teams at Google are about 4,000 people, and that doesn't even include all the people at Google providing infrastructure (e.g. servers, workplace, HR, legal etc.).
Comparing Firefox to Chromium-based browsers doesn't make much sense since these browsers don't develop their own web engine.
They are not entirely separate from Mozilla. The MZLA Technologies Corporation is a for-profit subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. They have access to some of Mozilla's common infrastructure, but are otherwise entirely funded by donations. Donations to MZLA only fund Thunderbird and no other products.
Sure, but we shouldn't stretch the analogy too far. Die rolls are discrete events, while miles driven are continuous. We expect the number of sixes we get to follow a binomial distribution, while we expect the number of accidents to follow a Poisson distribution. Either way, trying to guess the mean value of the distribution after a single incident of the event will never give you a statistically meaningful lower bound, only an upper bound.
> we should default to the calculation of 2-4x the rate.
No we should not. We should accept that we don't have any statistically meaningful number at all, since we only have a single incident.
Let's assume we roll a standard die once and it shows a six. Statistically, we only expect a six in one sixth of the cases. But we already got one on a single roll! Concluding Waymo vehicles hit 2 to 4 times as many children as human drivers is like concluding the die in the example is six times as likely to show a six as a fair die.
The distance from Earth to Mars is about 3 to 22 light minutes, not 20 to 90. That doesn't change anything about your point, except the capacity is lower.
The claim I responded to is that Bun is "at least twice as fast" as Deno. This sounds a lot more general than Bun being twice as fast in cherry-picked microbenchmarks. I wasn't able to find any benchmark that found meaningful differences between the two runtimes for real-world workloads. (Example: https://hackernoon.com/myth-vs-reality-real-world-runtime-pe...)
I only claimed there is absolutely zero chance that Bun is twice as fast at executing general JavaScript as Deno. The example doesn't give any insight into the relative speeds of Bun and Deno, as fast as I can tell.
Twice as fast at executing JavaScript? There's absolutely zero chance this is true. A JavaScript engine that's twice as fast as V8 in general doesn't exist. There may be 5 or 10 percent difference, but nothing really meaningful.
Are you using the Ubuntu Snap to train Firefox? If so, you can switch to the native Debian packages released directly by Mozilla. They don't do that sandboxing stuff, and they are a lot faster. I don't notice any speed difference between Chromium und Firefox even on a Raspberry Pi.
He also links a Wikipedia article stating that more than 60 percent of Londoners were born in Britain to prove his point that only a third of Londoners are "native Brits". That doesn't leave much room for interpretation.