I don’t wholly disagree, but I do take issue with the “they’d be none the wiser”

Even the average person knows there are more options than the original default browser. I have no love for windows, but long gone are the days when they didn’t prompt you for “would you like to make this your default browser” when you downloaded something else.

Try changing the average user’s web browser that they’re accustomed to overnight and tell me they don’t pitch a fit

Well you’re right, that comment got away from me and I forgot how I started it, so that did sound pretty dumb on re-reading.

Aside from that though, let’s dig in.

Are you suggesting only the very intelligent vote? How do you propose we have an inclusive voting system while not accepting that some people will vote recklessly, mistakenly (as in understanding), or antagonistically? It is a natural trapping and I see no way of extinguishing less than informed votes.

Yes, platforms and pillars are not as finely detailed during campaigns to the greater public. But it is unarguable that the two parties branch at the question of “remain the same as much as possible” vs “progress the government to meet modern times”

Other parties generally stem from the big two. It’s been a long time since anarchy or pure communism had a seat at the table

Let’s refine your comment.

In a majority rules, representative democracy, the peoples’ voice is heard through electing officials that promise to vote on behalf of the constituents.

This is seen to good effect in the legislative branch, where specific candidates hold office for short terms. But as empirical data suggests, the two party system is still relied upon, especially when it comes to less-than-ideally informed voters.

When it comes to presidential candidates, who wield far greater power over longer terms, voters are averse to the risk of giant, sweeping changes.

There have been numerous popular third-party candidates vying for the presidency, but none that sufficiently capture a voter base. So, therefore it is equated to throwing the vote away

But imo, long live Bernie. I would have voted with my soul

Right, but the Browser Wars are long dead and Google essentially won, then proceeded to build their business upon that outcome. It is surprising that they would opt to potentially lose their market share, (which is in the ballpark of 70% of users!), to reclaim the 10% they may be able to take from Mozilla.

** I want to add: I relatively recently watched the YouTuber Louis Rossman’s breakdown of u/Spez and his ridiculous handling of Reddit api pricing. The conclusion was basically that spez discarded his business sense to chase a vendetta. He wasn’t pricing to maximize Reddit’s profits but was pricing out Christian because the latter was more articulate about the issue at hand. I believe we’re seeing the same… that some exec within alphabet decided enough is enough and he is going to make sure adblocks die, regardless of what business sense tells us

I truly don’t understand their motivation to do this. It is the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Maybe they hope that a lawsuit will arrive at a default judgement on adblockers? Or maybe they’re just so brazen in that the US government won’t break up one of its prized conglomerates? One thing is for sure, Mozilla is going to continue to be awarded headlines

Look through OP’s account. It’s an Israel state troll. A broken clock and all that, but don’t encourage it

The term is secure or self-secure.

As in: “it didn’t bother him because he is secure in himself”

They are confirming that, yes, it is an option to have a partition dedicated to just the user’s (your) home environment and folders

and

asking if that is an option that appeals to you or you have already considered.

It is what I prefer, but there are people who have good reason to not like that. It’s worth trying out imo, and later if you find that it doesn’t suit you, that’s okay, you’ll just need to find another solution