Floorp didn't impress me either, but I'm not sure yet that I can 100% replace my awesome Arc workflow. The "Air Traffic Control" with profile / space combinations is spectacular. But I'll find a way to make it work, because I really prefer FOSS when possible.
Definitely as already answered, but I'll also add they have a "theme store" which is kind of a bespoke userChrome.css tool. It isn't just themes, but it is in addition to, not in lieu of Firefox extensions.
The profile switching is just that of Firefox, but with a button that makes it a bit more accessible. And there is the concept of workspaces within a given profile, but I haven't quite figured out how to set it up best for my workflow yet.
e: To clarify, I’m not saying all preservation is bad but that not all preservation is good. Take for example a website sharing the stories of named child victims or whatever revolts you… some things are best not preserved. If I host a website of stories that are my own creation, I should be able to take that down right? Just seems strange to me, the concept that nothing should fade into obscurity. I may be looking at it wrong.
This seems so black in white to me that I have a hard time discussing it with people. I support 230 protections if you blindly host and aggregate content. But the moment to do anything to drive engagement, a site should be fully responsible for every bit of content.
You’ve probably guessed that, in my opinion, this category already exists. It’s called Antisocial Personality Disorder, or ASPD, and it is in the DSM-V.
He contrasts these people with autistic children who are unable to conceptualize the internal lives of others, but distressed when they are able to tell that another person is in pain.
Have you considered even reading those articles. They all clarify the same thing. Psychopath and sociopath are informal terms used to describe what is medically called ASPD. Further, only one even mentions Autism and only to illustrate that it is in contrast to this condition. So do you have any links that say people with Autism are sociopaths as you have asserted?
And to address your edit, I said neither of those things. What I'm saying is that sociopath means something different than Autism. You are being intentionally obtuse, and I tire of it. You said "all autistic people are sociopaths" which is a hurtful, ignorant comment which you have failed to substantiate.
No, I'm saying the manual itself calls the diagnosis for sociopaths "ASPD", while specifically referencing by name, sociopathy as a direct corollary. You may also see the following references with respect to what the term means outside of DSM 5:
I'm not saying the official diagnosis itself is called sociopathy, but rather that the diagnosis for what is generally described as sociopathy (ASPD) is very different than the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. So now perhaps your can provide references to those with Autism being correctly referred to as sociopaths.
DSM’s current edition doesn’t specifically diagnose sociopathy, but it does address it as a corollary to ASPD. I suspect you know that. But sociopathy is well known to be a condition regarding the disregarding of the needs for others and it really isn’t socially advisable to label all autists as sociopaths despite your misunderstanding.
Sociopathy is about lacking specific traits, like empathy for example. At least with respect to the diagnosis criteria they are quite different and calling everybody with ASD sociopaths is actually not a good look.
It doesn’t mean that. Your inability or refusal to read a dictionary is your issue to deal with. I’ve lead you to the information. Now you just sound like a flat earther.
Every place that has ever been settled, has been settled at least once without inhabitants. You can use low order logic to arrive at that conclusion. But you don’t need to, as you are alive in the 21st century and seem to have access to the internet. Just go look at a dictionary. It is the only thing relevant here because a word’s definition is the only thing about which I have made assertions. If you are arguing connotative implications, I’ve already made it clear I have no issue with that.
If you just like to argue nonsense positions to hear your keyboard clack, cool. Have fun with that.
the dictionary doesn’t explain the etymology, nuance and history
One example since 1900
So... does history matter here or not? Tough to set those goalposts is a way that isn't paradoxical.
And no, I'm not going to contrive some example within your stringent framework because as far as I know one doesn't exist. But, then I can't think of any examples where humans moved in somewhere without breathable air either, so the presence of breathable air must be included in the definition of settle too, right? Do you realize how foolish your claim sounds. Just to clarify, I'm only asserting that "to settle" doesn't require the taking of others land by definition. I said it does generally involve that because all habitable land is currently inhabited, but that is the only reason.
Binary question, does the term require taking land from others? Really think about that. Just because two things are related, even if inextricably linked, doesn't mean the terms are unified to the same meaning. Just because we all breathe air doesn't mean "to breathe" requires air. In fact, fish breathe quite differently. Eating generally involves chewing, but does the term "eat" necessitate chewing? Surely not, since many animals swallow food whole. Don't some animals like birds, bees, wasps, opportunistic ants "settle" places after previous tenants have moved out of a location?
If a people migrated entirely out of a land, would the next people that made use of the land not be "settling" that land since they weren't taking it? It sure feels to me like that is what you're saying, and if you aren't, then we don't disagree. Settling is about coming to inhabit a place whether or not it is currently inhabited.
Every place that is currently inhabited was settled at least one time when no others lived there. It really doesn’t matter that you want to set the goalposts somewhere that fits some niche definition you are cultivating. You simply don’t seem to know what the word means.
I get that you believe that the term "settle" implies expelling others from a land, and if that were the case, you'd have a point. But I wonder if you've considered consulting a dictionary and the possibility that you're mistaken.
What I'm saying is that "settlers" is a superset of what is happening here, since "settle" doesn't imply anything beyond:
I've no doubt that you'll push back on this and claim the definition in your head is better than those found in dictionaries, but the rest of us are just aware what it means.
I’m not saying another is needed necessarily, but that others may be more precise. Colonizers, for example, may be so. Settlers is a superset here, and the only reason it nearly always involves occupied land is because most habitable land is currently inhabited. Imagine that we begin to settle Mars, hypothetically. That would be settling without taking the land others are occupying. So the word is just imprecise.
A bunch of people that either failed to understand the value of the moderation system or are just crybabies about being expected to follow the rules answering here.
It is easy to use and not nearly as toxic as most of the internet will claim. Research your question, ask clearly, include the code you attempted for a minimal reproduction, and include debugging details. If you don’t do those things, you are the problem, not the people closing your questions.
I find that multi account containers suits most of my needs for this. I have a container locked to work sites that has a separate credential chain.