Comment by ericpauley

Comment by ericpauley 3 days ago

131 replies

Completely agree. For all the hate Mozilla gets on HN, I’ve been using Firefox every day for a decade and it pretty much just works, supports a rich collection of (vetted!) extensions, and performs exceptionally well with sometimes hundreds of tabs.

Mozilla makes mistakes just like any organization but they’ve done and continue to do more for an open Internet than most.

WhyNotHugo 3 days ago

Firefox works, but it’s got thousands of annoying issues (many of them just paper cuts, but still).

The CEO’s salary is enough to fund >30 extra devs. Imagine how many of those issues could have been ironed out over the years.

  • sealeck 3 days ago

    The issue with the salary is not that it costs the same as 30 developers – good leadership can make a difference worth >30 developers over the same timespan (especially in an organisation with 1000s of staff). The problem is that the Mozilla leadership hasn't been great, which makes the high salary especially difficult to defend. It's unclear to me that you need to pay an extremely high salary to get a good Mozilla CEO - something like 2-3x the average staff engineer would make sense.

    • BeetleB 3 days ago

      > It's unclear to me that you need to pay an extremely high salary to get a good Mozilla CEO - something like 2-3x the average staff engineer would make sense.

      It's unclear to me that you need to pay more than $150K total compensation for a good SW engineer.

      Yet many over here are getting paid double that.

      Salaries are rarely based on value created. They are based on what others pay.

      • hajile 3 days ago

        If salaries were based on value added, a lot of software dev salaries would be orders of magnitude higher.

      • urda 3 days ago

        > It's unclear to me that you need to pay more than $150K total compensation for a good SW engineer.

        I, and many good or great SWE's, wouldn't even begin to entertain such a low offer. Your numbers are a little off.

      • palata 3 days ago

        > They are based on what others pay.

        That's the excuse given to make you accept those higher salaries. The truth is that there are not infinitely many positions for a CEO. There are certainly more people who can be competent CEOs than CEO positions.

        If you give an indecent salary to your CEO, you will get a CEO who looks for a crazy salary. That doesn't mean it's the most competent CEO you could get. Try offering a decent salary and you'll see that people still apply. You may not get the typical narcissistic profile, but it's probably not a loss.

      • wkat4242 3 days ago

        I think that factors in cost of living in silicon valley. I don't think devs even in other areas of the US make that much.

        I was offered a job at a big tech but I'd have had to move to the US to their campus because they hate remote work. And they offered only 120k (they probably figured that sounded like a ton of money to a European). But I started looking at the cost of living there and it was insane. I'd have had to share a flat and it would have to be far away, not a few km from the office like I'm used to. No way.

        Of course then Trump started happening and I was so glad I didn't move there. I'm kinda LGBTQ too so I'd be royally screwed if I'd been there now

    • Gentil 3 days ago

      > Mozilla CEO

      Laura Chambers is just an interim CEO. I am not sure how Mozill Foundation/Corporation is exactly linked in the decision making. But the key people are still Mark Surman and Mitchell Baker who is the Chairwomen of Mozilla Corporation.

      If Laura is getting paid lots like Mitchell Baker, it is still an issue. But, wouldn't she be just a scapegoat? I am pretty sure as Chairwomen, Mitchell Baker still has more power than Laura the CEO when it comes to Mozilla Corporation. I have felt this is just to chill the uproar against Mitchell Baker. Now everyone will blame the next CEO. But I wonder how much power she has. I could be wrong of course.

    • [removed] 3 days ago
      [deleted]
    • dmazzoni 3 days ago

      Has it been good leadership, though?

      They invested BILLIONS of dollars on things like:

      * Firefox OS * Mozilla Persona * Mozilla VPN * Firefox for TV (e.g. Amazon Fire) * Lockwise * Mozilla Hubs

      Did anyone ask for those things? What a huge waste for all of that to be built and abandoned.

      • sealeck 3 days ago

        Did you read my comment?

        > The problem is that the Mozilla leadership hasn't been great, which makes the high salary especially difficult to defend.

    • afavour 3 days ago

      > It's unclear to me that you need to pay an extremely high salary to get a good Mozilla CEO - something like 2-3x the average staff engineer would make sense.

      By objective measure I’d agree with you but you can’t deny the reality of the job market.

      If someone is a truly effective CEO they’d be able to get many, many times more than 2-3x staff engineer salary at pretty much any other company out there.

      • sealeck 3 days ago

        I think there is a small set of people who would do a good job running Mozilla. Of these people, a very large chunk would do this for $500k annually (this is still enough money for almost anyone to lead a very comfortable life). Being money-driven might make you _worse_ as Mozilla CEO.

        • bobbob27 3 days ago

          Great point. A company that needs to be steered by morality needs leadership that is willing to take the helm because their values align.

      • wkat4242 3 days ago

        But they're not. Firefox market share has tumbled and I'm getting more and more captchas because my browser is now so rare it's considered "suspicious". It's not a flaw in the product itself but it does affect its usability. Marketshare of at least 5-10% is crucial to be on the radar of web devs. Especially because the competition besides Safari is basically all one single browser because they share the engine.

      • Groxx 3 days ago

        If they're in it for the money, instead of the mission, then I say good riddance. That's how we get where we are now.

        2-3x staff engineer pay is a LOT of money. More than enough.

    • bell-cot 3 days ago

      This.

      Unfortunately, in our current "Greed is God" late-stage capitalist world, it's virtually impossible to find a competent tech CEO who is willing to work for mere honest wages. And (evidently) too difficult to even find one who's willing to work for 30X.

      • Aeolun 3 days ago

        I think if you are paying 30x engineer salary you are always going to find CEO’s that optimize for money.

  • EdwardKrayer 3 days ago

    I've had this conversation at least three times on HN. I'm convinced anyone who says that Firefox has a thousand issues simply doesn't use Firefox. But, I'm always open to being wrong. Can you point out the specific issues Firefox has that make it a second rate experience?

    • bmn__ 2 days ago

      Fx user here since it was called Phoenix and cookies were called delicious delicacies in the options, and Mozilla browser before that. IMO as a power user, it is a second-rate browser. The bar is set by [Opera v12](https://get.geo.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1216/).

      * no spatial browsing, not even as an extension. This feature alone I would use literally thousands of times a week. * no fit to width * no cycle display images enable/disable/cached * cannot edit menus or icons as simple configuration file * no tab thumbnails * reader mode that actually always works every single time, not just when the browser feels like it * no editable key bindings * no shortcuts for highlighting next/prev URL, next/prev heading, next/prev element * no presentation mode * no panelise web page * no navigation bar

      • EdwardKrayer 2 days ago

        My argument is primarily against commenters on HN who claim Firefox to be unusable, bug-filled, and then blame Mozilla for the current Blink-based browser apocalypse.

        You feel that Firefox doesn't have a bunch of features that you would use - but those are not bugs. I recognize this is HN - where there will definitely be a higher percentage of power users, but an open source project not having the features you want doesn't make it a second-rate browser, it just means it would take more work for you to customize. Listing cred of having used FF in the Mozilla days is the same as saying Linux is second rate because you installed Caldera back when people were still scared of Y2K.

        As a daily FF user - Firefox is great. And more users should give it a whirl, especially ones that haven't used it in a decade.

        • bmn__ a day ago

          You cheated me out of a sincere and genuine conversation. I resent that behaviour.

  • rs186 3 days ago

    > The CEO’s salary is enough to fund >30 extra devs

    I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation. That is incredibly incorrect thinking. Good CEOs and bad CEOs are two different creatures and lead companies to very different places. Just like you want to pay more for highly skilled developers, you want executive pay to be competitive to hire someone capable of the job.

    Put it this way, you could pay me $1m in annual compensation to be Mozilla's CEO (sounds like a good deal?), but I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO in the history of the company and cannot even run the company properly at a daily basis.

    • wpietri 3 days ago

      CEO pay has grown wildly in recent decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation_in_the_...

      Does mean that CEOs are wildly more effective? Or just wildly better at diverting profit to themselves? I'd argue the latter.

      Further, CEOs and wannabes have a strong incentive to structure organizations such that they depend ever more on the CEO, justifying massive compensation and of course feeding their egos. But I would argue that beyond a certain size, having to route everything important through one guy is an organizational antipattern. So yes, I'm very willing to argue most CEOs shouldn't exist. Or at least most CEO positions.

      • sssilver 3 days ago

        My understanding is that every employees compensation (from the janitor to the CEO) is basically a function of “how different would the outcome for the shareholders be if this person was replaced with someone else”.

        Obviously Apple wouldn’t be Apple without Jobs, Tesla without Musk, and Amazon without Bezos.

        Moving on from founders, we saw the cardinal difference between Balmer and Nadella for Microsoft.

        So there’s some merit to their role. One could argue that from a shareholders perspective it’s the only role that matters. Every other role is an opaque “implementation detail”.

        • SiempreViernes 3 days ago

          > Obviously Apple wouldn’t be Apple without Jobs

          Right, that explains why Tim Apple got 100 million dollars in 2022, he was just that good at channelling the spirit of Jobs.

    • thoroughburro 3 days ago

      > I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation. That is incredibly incorrect thinking. Good CEOs and bad CEOs are two different creatures and lead companies to very different places.

      If the “bad” CEOs don’t take pay cuts or subsequently struggle to find work, then that thinking is obviously not as “incredibly” incorrect as you claim.

      • ToucanLoucan 3 days ago

        Real talk: what are the issues with Mozilla's? I hate plenty of CEOs so I'm familiar but I've never heard... really anything, good or bad, about Mozilla's.

    • Aeolun 3 days ago

      > I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation.

      Yes. This is absolutely true. Most CEO’s are not worth this kind of money. In fact, most CEO’s could disappear overnight and cause zero disruption to the operation of the company.

      I think the complexity of the job is _far_ overrated, and the main reason people think they’d suck at it is because they have no/less confidence.

      People that become CEO’s are purely better at faking that confidence. If you are lucky, the confidence is built on skill instead of bluster, but they both get paid the same regardless.

    • eloisant 3 days ago

      CEO should exist, and it's normal that their compensation is the highest of the company.

      However it shouldn't be a 268 to 1 ratio with the median worker like the SP500 average. There is no way the CEO is worth that much money to the company.

      • josephg 3 days ago

        At a very large company, I think some individual decisions the CEO makes will have much more impact on the company than the work output of 268 employees. I think some CEOs really are probably worth that kind of money. People like Steve Jobs.

        However, most ceos aren’t genius superstars. And I don’t think CEO pay really makes sense given supply and demand. I think there’s plenty of people who could do at least as good a job as many CEOs do, and would happily do so for a lot less money.

        I suspect a lot of CEO pay is an arse-covering exercise by the board. If the board hires a super expensive CEO, and that person turns out to be terrible, the board can say they did everything they could do to get the best ceo. But if the board hires someone for much less money who turns out to be a turkey, they might be blamed for cheaping out on the ceo - and thus the company’s downfall is their fault.

        Is the Mozilla CEO really so amazing at their job that they deserve such insane compensation? I doubt it. I bet there’s dozens of people at Mozilla today who are probably smart enough to do a great job as CEO. They just won’t be considered for the role for stupid reasons.

      • sokoloff 3 days ago

        I disagree (not a CEO). What’s the median worker at a company like Walmart or Amazon paid? To think that a CEO of those couldn’t improve (or degrade) the company’s performance by many thousand times more than a Walmart or Amazon worker seems strange to me. They’re paying them to not make those companies into Sears or J.C.Penney.

        Investors (and the boards they hire) pay CEOs for results. That range of results is very wide for large companies.

    • bigstrat2003 3 days ago

      > I keep seeing this line as if people think CEOs shouldn't exist or aren't worth their compensation.

      Yes indeed. There is no CEO in existence worth 30 of the employees that work under them. It's certainly true that good and bad CEOs exist, and that a good CEO can be a force multiplier that deserves higher compensation. But 30x (and often more!!) is an insane overinflated view of CEOs' worth to the company. The only reason they get away with it is that they are hired by the board of directors, which is.. other CEOs. So a good old boys' club is keeping salaries high completely divorced from any actual value provided.

    • wkat4242 3 days ago

      Everyone's acting like a competent CEO is some kind of rocket scientist unicorn.

      In reality they don't do all that much. And most of the decisions are driven by data and advice from Gartner that just recommend the highest bidder, not some magical insights.

      After all the CEO works for the board which is made up of shareholder representatives. They have very little industry knowledge and they just want the company to jump on the latest hype and "industry practices". They're usually very risk-averse.

      So the CEO is kinda tied by what's happening in the industry anyway. The only CEOs that are capable of breaking that are the ultra confident ones like Jobs or Musk.

    • rglullis 3 days ago

      > I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO

      If you just do nothing, you'll be better than the last 10 years of Mozilla's CEOs.

    • 42lux 3 days ago

      Well just look at that one CEO instead of doing the same mistake you accuse others of.

    • triceratops 3 days ago

      In theory, every one of the CEO's reports (other than their administrative staff) is capable of stepping into the CEO's job. If they aren't capable (albeit some with coaching and support) that calls into question the company's overall hiring and promotion practices.

      In that case, for every CEO there's literally a dozen other people at that company alone who could do their job. Why do we keep repeating that good CEOs are in short supply?

      Moreover study after study has shown little correlation between CEO pay and quality of decision-making. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Mayer#Yahoo!_(2012%E2%...

      And finally, rich people eventually look for other ways to feel valued. Status is a big one. Having the top job at the company is a big perk in and of itself. If they don't feel privileged to be the CEO, why the hell even take the job?

    • calgoo 3 days ago

      I have seen CEOs that where earning 250k in the EU with thousands of employees. The issue is an entitlement issue, where today's world makes people think that they deserve millions of dollars for leading a company, same issue as developers expectings hundreds of thousands for their work. Its a corruption of the system which is both a effect and a cause of the current death of capitalism in the US.

    • cogman10 3 days ago

      How did your CEO become CEO? Mine got there because he was golfing buddies with another CEO that was golfing buddies with another CEO that was golfing buddies with the company that ultimately bought out my old CEO.

      How does that make them "worth it"?

      > but I am sure I will be the most terrible CEO in the history of the company

      Look, I've interacted with CEOs and frankly the job isn't nearly as hard as you are making it out to be. The most important aspect of the job is socializing, not managing the company like you might assume. It's putting on a good show and making potential clients like you. It's every bit just being a good salesperson.

      There's a reason, for example, my CEO currently lives in California even though his company is halfway across the country and has no offices in CA.

      Now, that isn't to say the Job of a founder CEO isn't a lot more difficult, it is. However, once a company is established the CEO job is a cakewalk. There's a reason companies like FedEx had a CEO literally in his 80s that gave up the reigns right before he died.

      If you have the ability to schmooze, sit through meetings, and read power-points. Congratulations, you have what it takes to be a CEO.

      • hluska 3 days ago

        This is a remarkably short sided and inexperienced sounding take on what that position does.

ksec 3 days ago

It is strange because the hate on Firefox does not fall in sync with the quality of Firefox. As if the product itself dont matter. Had it been Pre 2020 it may have made more sense.

Apart from a few years between IE 7 and Chrome, the past few years is the only time where I would rate Firefox as the best browser, especially for Multi Tab usage. Chrome back on top since 2024 after spending years working on memory efficiency as well as multi tab ( meaning tens to hundreds ) optimisation.

So while Mozilla in terms of management and their strategy ( or lack of ) has been the same, they get much of the hate because people now dislike Google and Chrome and needs a competitor. It is as if they dislike Google so they also dislike the Google sponsored Mozilla Firefox.

For all the site I visit, I have never had problem with Chrome, mostly because I guess everyone tested their website with it, much like old IE days. Where I used to have problems with Safari pre version 18, Firefox has always worked. I remember I have only encounter rendering issues once or twice in the past 3-4 years on Firefox.

There are lots of Webkit fixes landing in Safari 26. So 2025 may finally be the year where browser rendering difference is now at an acceptable minimum. Partly thanks to Interop. At least for the past 6 months I have yet to ran into issues on any of the three major browser. And this is progress.

  • kelnos 3 days ago

    I don't hate Firefox. It is my daily driver. I hate that Firefox went from the dominant browser by market share, to the minor, insignificant player it is today.

    I hate that Firefox is so irrelevant that most web devs don't test on it. For many sites that's fine, because web standards are web standards, and Firefox supports them quite well. But whenever I run across a broken site, or even one that mostly works, but gives me papercuts, and then fire up Chrome and see that it works fine there, a little bit of me cries inside.

    Mozilla should be focusing a lot more on user acquisition, and on figuring out why so many of their users have left.

  • immibis 3 days ago

    The hate on Mozilla. This entire thread is people saying that Firefox is great, but Mozilla is shit. Why do you think that hate on Mozilla is the same as hate on Firefox?

  • PaulDavisThe1st 3 days ago

    > As if the product itself dont matter.

    That's sort of the point. Firefox is an excellent, even amazing browser. But because of the way Mozilla has handled it, it's become largely an also-ran, and its continued existence seems highly dependent on its primary competitor in the browser space. That's just incompetent given the quality of Firefox.

    • dralley 3 days ago

      Chrome's marketing budget is nearly as large as Mozilla's entire budget. They spent a couple of years actively targeting Firefox users with Chrome ads on the frontpage of google.com, and got Adobe Flash and Java and most of the free antivirus solutions to auto-install Chrome and make it the default browser.

      I have yet to hear anyone on HN present an argument for how Mozilla could effectively counter that onslaught. Certainly not without using methods that they would also have complained about. (Though nobody seems to hold Chrome's bloatware tactics against them for some reason).

  • eloisant 3 days ago

    The thing is that in 2020 it was too late. Firefox have been lagging behind Chrome for so long, that the headstart they had when Chrome was launched didn't matter.

    For example, Chrome had process in tabs when it was released in 2008. Firefox had a ticket in bugzilla open by the community that had been ignored by Mozilla for years, before Chrome was released. Even when it was released, Mozilla's first reaction was "meh, we don't need that".

cmcaleer 3 days ago

There are making mistakes as an organization, and there is taking exorbitant sums of money from advertising partners and having your costs inflate to match these donations, rather than something, anything to help the sustainability of Mozilla.

Imagine if at any point in the last 2 decades leadership in Mozilla had started an endowment[0] instead of them spending many billions of dollars on ineffective programs, harebrained acquisitions, and executive salaries. They could have had a sustainable, long-lasting model that would have kept Mozilla relevant and strong for decades to come.

Instead, Mozilla sold itself out to become a shield for Google while being grossly mismanaged to the point that it is entirely reliant on a deal that at any point could be rugged from them. At no point in the last two decades has resolving this ever been a meaningful focus beyond panhandling for donations that barely cover executive compensation.

I still try to use Firefox and I desperately want to be proven wrong in my opinion that Mozilla's leadership is incompetent, or malicious, or both, but I've been hoping for this since Chrome was released.

I want them to succeed and be who they were before, but Mozilla leadership does not.

[0] Wikimedia did this nearly a decade ago and it's been a huge success and makes Wikimedia more resilient! There's a model for this!

amy214 3 days ago

>Completely agree. For all the hate Mozilla gets on HN, I’ve been using Firefox every day

Completely agree, Mozilla and Chrom is a lot like a president election, they both suck hard, you're kinda stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. I mean Kamala isn't great, but me, as a dainty woman who happens to have a penis and does not happen to have documentation surrounding my residency in the US, Kamala isn't so bad in comparison! Kamala is firefox.

Cloudef 3 days ago

I feel like the only people who hate firefox are frontend devs

  • PaulHoule 3 days ago

    I’m more of a full-stack but I develop “Firefox first” on my projects if I can and leave it to my tester to see that it works on Chrome. X-browser issues turn up rarely, I wind up having more trouble with Safari than anything.

    I know Mozilla does worse on benchmarks, but I never complain about performance. Recently I tried some sites from one of the spammiest sectors on the web and found I couldn’t move the mouse without my Chrome lighting up like a Christmas tree and navigating me to crap sites, but the Firefox experience was that I had to click on something for all hell break loose.

    We have an internal app that has screen with a JavaScript table thingie with 40,000 rows loaded locally. Crazy? Yeah. It performs great on Chrome and lags pretty bad on the fox. That’s the only bad screen, and we have a lot of screens.

    Personally I don’t like it that they have an office in San Francisco. Emotionally I think, “the only thing anybody should be building in San Francisco is a homeless shelter.” Practically though, I think a browser company can’t “think different” if is steeped in the Bay Area culture, not least if they can get in a car and go visit people at Google and Facebook. If they were someplace else they might have a little more empathy for users.

    • MegaDeKay 3 days ago

      Like you I have found Firefox to work pretty well in real world applications. The one place I found it did fall over was Microsoft Office Online. FF runs like molasses in a large online Excel spreadsheet vs Chrome.

      • wkat4242 3 days ago

        Microsoft is absolutely terrible at Firefox support. I feel like they do it in purpose. In fact when I set my user agent to Edge half the issues in O365 disappear! Suddenly things actually work.

        The latest crap is that it now requires me to sign in every single day on Firefox. And often after I sign in it immediately goes to "hang on while we're signing you out". Meanwhile they're pushing edge heavily as a vehicle of copilot promotion. So I'm pretty sure this is just intentional breakage..

    • jodrellblank 3 days ago

      > “We have an internal app that has screen with a JavaScript table thingie with 40,000 rows loaded locally. Crazy? Yeah.

      Crazy, no; a loop over 40,000 items should take a fraction of a second, and at 1KB per row it’s less than 1% of a 4GB memory stick.

      The 1 billion row challenge leader parsed a billion rows of CSV - 10 GB of data, through a Java/graal VM - in 0.33 seconds!

    • paradox460 3 days ago

      This works because you're deliberately targeting a set of features Firefox supports, and the overwhelming majority of the time they're a subset of what Chrome (and increasingly, Safari) support

      Read over the various web platform blogs out there, and keep a tally of how many times you'll see "Firefox gains support for XYZ in 139, bringing it to widespread availability. Chrome has supported this since 32 and Safari since version 16"

      And many of these are fantastically useful features. Sure, they're not ground breaking building blocks like in the old days when IE didn't even support certain types of box model, but they're echos of the past

      • PaulHoule 3 days ago

        Worse than that, where I work I can only install an LTS Firefox so I am stuck with relatively old features, but, hey, I’m in React land using components with some time lag in their development that don’t use these new features. I was kinda shocked to see that mainstream toolkits aren’t using <dialog/> given that it is a huge leap forward for accessibility… screen readers do not see anything they’re not supposed to see, end of story. Trouble is that it does cause trouble for frameworks that depend heavily on portalization.

        • paradox460 2 days ago

          The one that's shocked me the most is when I was writing some CSS for a recent project using Lit components, and nesting doesn't work at all.

          Component level CSS is simple enough that I didn't really have to go out of my way to do anything above and beyond, and if I had to I could just use a loader that uses sass or postcss or something similar, but it was a bit surprising.

          That said, I have really enjoyed Lit. I wrote the original components for this project in 2023, and haven't really touched them till earlier this week. Bumped all package dependencies, and did the usual things you'd do for an upgrade, and they have had a stable API over the two years they've existed.

          Regarding Dialog, a few years ago, when it was brand new, I was working on a project that used LiveView and SurfaceUI. We had a few modals that were used throughout the app, and I was in the process of migrating them to use Dialog before getting laid off. The tricky part, at the time, was that a Dialog invoked through pure HTML, no JS, lacked certain features that were available to the JS APIs. The HTML side has caught up, and the JS APIs have improved, but I've not touched frontend professionally in that time.

  • bevr1337 3 days ago

    Just my two pennies. Firefox is the best vendor for adhering to spec. In contrast, Webkit drags its feet while Chromium releases and deprecates experimental API willy nilly.

    There has been one debugging niche where I've found Chromium preferable: Chrome sometimes gives better WebRTC signaling error messages than Firefox.

matteoraso 3 days ago

I'm in the same boat as you. Even if there's slight issues with Firefox, being able to synchronize my profile with my phone using the Firefox app outweighs all of that. AFAIK, Chrome doesn't have that.

ivell 2 days ago

In the past I was annoyed with Firefox due to sluggishness and propensity to defects. But since 2 years I have been using Firefox daily and I am quite happy with it. They are doing at least somethings right.

tomalbrc 3 days ago

lol market share doesn’t lie

  • vehemenz 3 days ago

    I think you're going to have trouble defending this position.

    Chrome hasn't been the best browser for most of its market share lead.

    Internet Explorer 6 was never the best browser despite leading market share more than any browser in history.

  • Brian_K_White 3 days ago

    lol of course it does? Every day at every scale of every category of every product or service.