Kindof. It's impressive and definitely a worthwhile endeavour.
But they did need to attract a large amount of investment and sponsorships.
The lead developer has worked on browsers at Apple and there is probably only a handful of people on the planet who can do what he's doing.
If you follow his updates and listen to his interviews, you get a sense of what a massive undertaking this is and how much expectation management is involved.
I'm very interested in the concept of new browsers that are not intended to browse modern HTML+CSS+JS spec, but maybe something completely different. Web content varies so wildly from one context to another and I wonder if all of the spec is really needed for certain use cases: if I just want to read news, or if I just want to tell the audience what services I provide and what my phone number is, do we really need to involve WASM and canvas and web workers?
Without having tried this, I'd say the problem with a predictive algorithm is that it is (ironically) impossible for the user to predict what will happen.
So after switching, they will need a short moment to reorient: understand where they were taken, check if it matches where they wanted to go, and then either switch again or stop the switching process to resume work. In UX design, it's better if you can complete a longer process without having to halt and reorient many times in the process (like opening a menu that was hidden and wait for a loading animation to complete, until you can actually read the menu items are).
If it's impossible to keep a mental model of where you are in the system, and how you can move to another specific window, then actually EVERY window switch requires much more effort and conscious thought.
I think windowing systems, virtual desktops, spotlights, stage managers, exposés, mission controls, are all too complicated... I don't know what the solution is, and I think it's great that people are working on novel solutions. But I do know I want to easily switch between 2-4 windows without the order randomly changing.
I have a very similar frustration with the complexity here, and found that scrolling tiled window managers (like PaperWM, Niri, etc.) might actually be the answer. All your windows are in a line, press the shortcut until you hit focus the one you want. Reorder with a shortcut or with a mouse.
The main problem with them is system support, they are buggy when tacked on top of a desktop OS (PaperWM), or require a pretty finicky custom setup (Niri).
This! I actually kinda miss the Win7 enhanced switcher (I actually kinda miss the whole Win7 Aero desktop, but I digress) ... Win-Tab bringing up a scrollable stack of the actual windows you have open and being able to either directly select the one you want or just keep Win-Tabbing through them. The Win10 tiled view is similar, but lacks the charm somehow...
I completely agree, a lot of the existing solutions are too complicated. I just want to be clear that once you use the override shortcut, the algorithm won't have any effect on the your switch order. When you are ready to switch windows, if you use the switch shortcut to switch from window A and it takes you to window B (because this is that the algorithm predicted) but this isn't what you wanted, you would press the override shortcut to go to C instead. Now because you have an override in effect for A, every time you switch from A it will take you to C, unless you use the override shortcut again.
Let's say you had $100k in the bank before you started this.
You buy the product and ship it, costing you $75k. Your balance is now at $25k.
You expect revenue of $150k from customers. This would take your balance to $175k with net profit of $75k.
But Stripe refunds the customers, and the revenue never comes. Your net loss (excluding labor, marketing etc.) is now either $75k (the money that is no longer in your account) or $150k (expected balance vs. the actual balance).
It doesn't make sense to take the sum of those two. Your expectation was that the incoming revenue would cover the procurement and shipping.
Even that isn't right: if the original balance was $100k the loss can never be larger than that. You still have 25K in the bank so the loss is $75k, any other interpretation should not be labelled a loss, at best they are misguided expectations.
The 150k is a "loss" in the same way that the movie industry "lost" $500 million (or whatever it is that they claimed) to piracy: revenue that they think they should have gotten, but didn't.
I agree it's up to interpretation, but in this scenario, the seller has shipped a set number of goods that the customers have paid for. The revenue has been generated but not moved successfully through a service provider to the final destination.
So it's not just an estimate. The money is not imaginary, it has already been collected from the customers.
Talk to a lawyer asap. Also, do your best to resolve the situation with Stripe in a non-confrontational way (people don't like to cooperate with belligerents even when becoming one would be justified).
My bank provider chose to terminate my business's account for a BS reason. No interest in resolving or discussing the situation in any way. Enjoy uprooting everything: find new banking services, change your accounting, all integrations, card payments, invoicing, account history, backups etc. etc. Ultimately I figured it out and it's nothing close to your scale, but for an independent contractor this would threaten their entire livelihood.
Financial institutions want to steer clear of all regulation and be extra cautious with KYC and fraud. They will always take their own side over their customers. There's inevitably a segment of false positives to be flagged as liabilities.
These companies can ultimately ruin your businesses and your product, due to malice (rare) or incompetence (less rare). Always have redundancies, where possible.
