I mean, nothing you said is exactly intelligent, your analogy was pretty horrid from the start since the issues with FF effects the product, and this mostly seems like an incoherent rambling about how you don’t like people expecting more because everything else is worse.

If they don’t eat babies, cool they don’t. If your morality says you need to eat a certain amount of babies and you also have it play into your purchases then it would make sense if they didn’t you didn’t use the product. That’s not a takedown of the idea in any real sense, just you attempting to lean into the fact people wouldn’t like someone with that morality.

You’re implying the arguments are invalid because changing the condition morality consumption etc changes people’s reaction but that’s because they find it unsound, not invalid. They disagree on the premises.

For example, you equated bisexuality with baby eating with one of your examples. If someone thinks both are moral failings, and they don’t want to use products that have creators they think are immoral, it would be logically valid for them to avoid baby eater produced products or products made by bi folk.

Me saying they’re wrong and a piece of shit is me saying the premise that bisexuality is a moral failing is wrong and believing it is morally incorrect as well, not that the idea is invalid if you did accept that premise.

You’re also ignoring the fact that many FF complaints is because the things people think they do that is wrong is the features they implement into the browser.

So even if you don’t particularly think people should apply their morality in what things they support and blindly consume or use products without care, you would also have to support the idea that people should blindly support products that they believe are actively decreasing in quality.

And viability doesn’t mean anything in this race, chrome is also viable believe it or not, arguably more viable since websites assume you’re on chromium a majority of the time and some actively have attempted to hinder Firefox, so if pure web browsing viability is your concern you should be championing the cause of Google Chrome.

I use a FF fork and have never really had an issue with it so far and have zero complaints, your argument was just so incoherent and has so many weird assumptions I don’t know how you arrived at the stance you did besides potentially a Mozilla check lmao. But that can’t be the case either; if it was their execs would have less money in their pockets while begging for Google handouts and that’s not happening.

So… eating babies is different than every other example you listed. The reason most people think you shouldn’t care about a creator being Bi, or driving automatic is those aren’t moral failings.

Also even the eating babies example sucks as the perceived moral failings also influence the product until the pushback has them renege.

It’s more akin to them having weird stalker behavior and then occasionally dropping a track where they talk about how fun it is creeping on folks.

It both is weird and I’d rather not support someone that does it if at all possible, and it also influences the product they are putting out.

Eh, I mean they’re designed to be as predatory as possible but if you do math and treat it as a debit you literally just get free money back.

Also you need a credit history here as no credit is treated as the same (if not worst) than bad credit and the only other options for establishing one is taking out loans.

If you’re okay never being able to finance a vehicle or house though, then no credit history is fine as long as you can provide full cash for those purchases up front.

shopping spree on a non-taxation one

You have discovered Delaware.

Are any of those official successors?

Just about any defunct online service sees a dozen knockoffs of even more questionable quality than the original (for those into manga, think what happened to the site batoto after being sold). But it still remains that if you go to omegle.com, you get the defunct page and an explanation. Typing it into search engines did give exactly one that I know is legitimately a chatting service (ome.tv), but also are trying to act as if they are the original sites, some seemingly using templates and pointing to different apps to direct download their apks and the like.

I think suggesting they’re the same as the original (which was grimy, and full of sex pests, but the site itself didn’t pose such blatant infosec issues) is disingenuous imo

deleted by creator

Arch, because I get to say that I use Arch. /s

Omegle

Gramps, they shut down 2 years ago

would love to have an excuse to give even more ludicrous amounts of taxpayers dollars to military contractors

The idea that anyone would need an excuse to give military contractors infinite money in this country is the funniest thing I’ve heard all day.

That would mean the vast majority of software can always be considered in testing. I report bugs for games I play, heck many sub-communities function around them. I report bugs for the professional software I use, and even for Windows, my OS, and Android, things I had to pay for. So all software is just tested and never used under that definition.

I don’t know what you mean that I want to be thought of as special, I’m in IT, not software development, and I don’t contribute to code so these “special” people wouldn’t include me.

Edit: Also, most paid products do the same thing so you should be paid for those as well. You get function from FOSS software and thus it is a used product. If it isn’t functioning you swap to a better one, maybe a paid one, or circumvent the functionality. The thing is with FOSS the feedback is part can be code suggestions. I personally don’t do it as all the FOSS software I use I tend to be happy enough with it. However, if something is truly that mission critical for you to use the software, you can contribute. I have friends who have done so. Also just about every software I use takes feedback and suggestions. What makes FOSS special is the ability to contribute when the suggestions you want to see are not the priority. I have had an MS Teams bug I’ve been dealing with for several users for going on a year now and MS has told me to kick rocks, I don’t have much more to do from there. For FOSS, I could try to directly implement the solution, or fork the project to meet my needs. There are dozens of projects that have come into existence because of this principle and it is one of the core parts of FOSS software. I wasn’t being smug, I was being very genuine in that you are a user benefiting from the software. Obviously, if someone wants their FOSS software as widely adopted as possible they will cater to their users. Many FOSS products don’t operate on that principle though, particularly smaller ones that are for needs the developer had and everything else is secondary. In those cases, often someone else will come along and fork it and create their own version. It’s one of the benefits of FOSS. Again, the reason I said you were a user is because if you were a tester the primary reason you would be testing is for payment or compensation. If the primary goal is to utilize the function of what it gives you even if it has problems or UI/UX issues you are a user. If you want to be a tester, I have seen some FOSS products search for them in the past so you likely could try to make a buck in your free time for them.

Not testing, using.