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.

Comparing Firefox to Chromium-based browsers doesn't make much sense since these browsers don't develop their own web engine.

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.

That's why there are websites without cookie banners, like GitHub. It's not even hard to do that; it's just that most companies don't bother, because they know the EU will be blamed anyway.