Even if it didn’t have superior functionality, I’d still support & use firefox over chrome just because I don’t care how fast the sports car is: if it’s not going where I tell it to, I ain’t gettin’ in.
One is access to serial ports to flash ESP devices, or update the firmware on my XR glasses. Firefox can’t do that.
The other is to automate Twitch drop collection. The addon I found to reload broken streams and collect drops while I’m at work only has a Chrome version.
Looking at it, seems not. Google store page says it doesn’t follow best practices and may soon no longer be supported. AFAIK it’s a single dev hobby project so this might be the end of it. Ah well. I’ll just no longer have as many free skins for games.
Some websites intentionally break Firefox for some reason. I’ve had numerous issues on Firefox which were resolved by switching to Chrome. These could potentially be fixed by a User-Agent string change, but instead of dealing with it I switched to a Chromium based browser.
What if we stop using User-Agent altogether? It would increase privacy and prevent browser discrimination. Too bad for the Analytics services, but after all… who cares?
Last time I checked: tab groups. Yes there are extensions for it, but all the ones I tried were either really over complicated or buggy. Chrome tab groups are pretty simple and seamless to use.
But I’m going to have to figure something out because I’d rather lose tab groups than ad blocking, so I’ll have to switch to something.
Waterfox has a native sidebar/vertical tab feature along with container tabs that might fill your tab group needs (I stopped using chrome before they added tab groups so I watched a 4m video on them and seems like you could get all the features and more out of the sidebar).
to be fair, the kids were on bikes? cars are weapons, and I can see not wanting those in your community. this is the fuckcars activism we need in the world.
Back in the wild west, it was common to “check your guns” apon entering almost every single town. Yes, you needed protection from bandits and outlaws, but entering you left them with the sheriff and picked them up leaving.
Wyatt Earp enforced such laws and he was about the most manly tough guy you can get. He’s an example of everything they think of as anti-woke and he restricted gun access within city limits.
Funnily enough, usually it was to keep black people and Asian people from being armed while turning a blind eye to armed white people. Gun control is racist.
That I don’t know, but I do know that black people made up a huge portion of the cowboys in the wild west. 25% or more. After the Civil War freed slaves rode west. Some settled and built homes, many more became cowboys.
Louder for those in the back. Volumes have been written on the subject, and the information is a only a quick search away.
Many of you are familiar with Reagan, as Governor of California, banning open carry because of the Black Panthers. Yeah, that gets tossed around a good bit, but the racism inherent in historical and modern gun laws goes far deeper.
So is it less racist if everyone's arms are restricted or if everyone can open carry? Not trying to be an asshole, I'm just not convinced that asking for guns upon entry is inextricable from racism.
Though I suppose policing an an institution in itself is pretty racist since enforcement is often done by authoritarians who are terrified of others. But that's not really exclusive to policing, unfortunately; most state institutions are racist.
Anyway, I agree with you on some level, but surely there's an answer here that doesn't subjugate specific classes of people.
Edit: Then again, it's in the interest of the state to have a monopoly on violence, so idk what to think. I'm just sick of not doing anything and not having any ideas when mass shootings happen.
Honestly? More education (and possibly more exposure) and less fetishization, although I’m not quite sure how to achieve the second one.
Back when my parents were in school, schools had shooting teams (my high school apparently had an award-winning women’s team), and my dad even brought a gun to school once to show to a teacher (it was an older gun and the teacher was a gun collector). They spent the whole of lunch period talking about how cool that old gun of grandpa’s was.
Because back then a gun was just a tool, and one more people had access to, since a lot of people were still out on the farm and such. My dad learned from a young age that guns were dangerous, and how to properly handle them, and pretty much all his classmates did too.
But then the Republicans started the, ‘we have to regulate!’ and the ‘but think of the children!’ nonsense because that was when the Black Panthers started going around armed, and a bunch of white people were suddenly uncomfortably aware that minorities could defend themselves from racial violence if they wanted to.
And then the Republican Party turned around and started making guns an ‘identity’ thing, so suddenly they became a symbol of Republican so-called ‘values’, and people began obsessing over them like they were rare jewels or some such nonsense. It didn’t help that the Democrats were happy to jump on the bandwagon as the ‘we’re totally against guns so you can tell we’re different from them!’ group to provide a pearl-clutching counterpoint.
And so now we’ve got, well, all the fetishized and forbidden-fruit bullshit. Guns are kind of seen almost like cigarettes on steroids: the cool and dangerous thing that all the rebels and ‘strong independent types’ have.
I’m a bit In despair as to how to get us to stop doing that. Certainly other nations, like Switzerland, have lots of guns and gun access and don’t have our problems. But they definitely don’t build identities around firearms either.
Edit to add: of course Switzerland has actual functional health care, including mental health care, so I imagine that helps.
Indeed, which is why they have auto-switch Glocks in Chicago ordered off the internet but Kyle had to endure months of struggle sessions disguised as trials.
Private event, their rules. Fuck off Paxton. This “good guy with a gun” stuff is bullshit and everyone knows it, but by all means puff out the chest and bluster for the idiots in your constituency.
they’re afraid because they know if TX cops will cower around outside while school kids are massacred inside, then they sure as shit aren’t going to rush in to gOoDgUyWItHgUn at some fair with drunk texans
There are some people who both start and end every gun debate with the “good guy with a gun” argument. Nothing gets through the impenetrable logic of “it makes sense to me”.
I was there the night of the incident last year. I was afraid of a stampede BEFORE the shooting, it was that crowded. Yeah, guns need to be banned or Paxton needs to provide a realistic solution.
Bans like this are straight silly. How exactly do we propose to stop anyone from carrying? Maybe some TSA style security theater? We going to scan thousands of people coming into fairgrounds?
Now people like me will obey the law, and some will not. Now I am unarmed, and they are. People planing mayhem, or people who prone to it, will simply ignore this. And in some states, it’s perfectly legal to carry on private property even if the owners ban it, you can only be forced to leave under threat of trespass. In others, you’re going to jail if caught.
Being a gun nut, I’m leaning towards the latter. If a property owner says, “No.” (to anything), I’m inclined to side with them.
There’s not much excuse for ignorance on this in 2024, you wearing a mask was never to keep you from getting Covid, it was to stop you from spreading it if you already had it. Though I imagine you were one of the idiots who treated it like a chin diaper.
What’s even worse is every time someone mentions Firefox, some chucklefuck has to go hardcore negative on everything Mozilla does that is 1/10th as shitty as Google. Just shut your piehole if you don’t like the only somewhat private open source browser.
Let's be honest, Mozilla is only 1/10 as shitty as Google because they're 1/100 the size. If they had the resources, they'd be just as awful. They've already shown us how awful they can be at their current size, I can't imagine how bad they'd be if they were at Google's scale. Firing your employees and giving your execs bonuses is 100% a Google-like move, and the only reason they stopped at a few hundred employees was because they didn't have more to give.
Just because they make a good open source product doesn't make them immune from criticism.
You severely underestimate how shitty Google is. I highly doubt Mozilla would try to pull shit like Web Integrity or making their sites work worse on competitor browsers on purpose even if they were as large as Google. (Though, maybe to become as large as Google they would have to start doing this kind of shit so you might be right in some way.)
My biggest worry about Mozilla is that most of their revenue comes from Google. What’s stopping Google from demanding that Mozilla does certain things to Firefox, like forcing them to reduce the ad blocking capabilities, just like Chrome?
My wife wanted to sit out the election when it was Biden running over his unending support of the slaughter in Gaza, and the only thing that got her out to vote was that the were also some ballot measures which needed votes. I wrote on Cenk Uyger for the primary myself, not sure how she voted. Now we’re both super excited to vote for Harris/Walz
Obviously we’ve got fairly similar political views
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.