I don’t want a security “profile” because I don’t fit in to whatever few boxes you have setup. Or maybe I just don’t trust what you do behind that security profile setup.

I want my own granular cookie tracking. Steal it from chrome if you have to. It is the best thing since sliced bread.

I want a list of every cookie I have got. Just like IE used to do. Just chrome does today.

I want to set in the smallest detail which cookies are allowed, which are blocked, and which only last until I close session.

I have umatrix and ublock with only my personal filter list. It is not good enough. I want something much like chrome.

It's usershare first, then you have weight to put towards web standards. And I'm afraid Mozilla doesn't have the resources and willpower to fight that battle anyway. If I'm calling shots with Firefox I'm moving to Chromium immediately and then focusing on UI and privacy features. It's probably too late to make that change though. I just read Firefox lost 50 million monthly users in the last two years.

It's a little sad, there is room in the market for a 3rd party, power user's browser but it's obvious as can be that whatever browser that will be- it will be on Chromium and it won't be Firefox.

After having fixed a few bugs in that regard, I pushed for giving re-enabling it by default another try with the rewritten browser, and so far that decision luckily (from my point of view) seems to have stuck.

Additionally, it has recently turned out that for pages specifying an explicit desktop-sized viewport (i.e something like meta name="viewport" content="width=1024", as opposed to either using nothing at all, which gives the standard desktop-size viewport of 980 px, or "width=device-width", meaning it's a mobile-friendly responsive layout), there was a long-standing bug meaning that the font scaling for desktop-style pages was erroneously being deactivated on xxhdpi-phones.

This latter bug affects the desktop versions of both Reddit and Slashdot for example, as both of those are using an explicitly sized viewport. It has now been fixed in Firefox 93 (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1685756)

I rarely close my browser except for updates, or when I'm spe cifcally taking advantage of delete on exit. However, delete on tab close would be dreamy.

I don't really want it to be an extension. I don't like the power given to extensions, so the less I use the better. Sorry decent extension devs, for me the bad guys have tarnished the trust to just not want to use any.

I'm not Scottish myself, but even I could claim to somewhat understand Scots. I wouldn't say so on a census, but I'm sure there are plenty that would. Especially when there's some national pride at stake.

On macOS, there's also an app to achieve that, called "Cookie": https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/cookie/id1473091386?l=en&mt=12

On iOS however, Apple's walled garden...

See how much of that series you can get through. :)

I like to think I'm a man of the world. I watch a lot of Scottish TV (Burnistoun etc.), have done the NC500 and have plenty of Scottish friends. Of course there is dialect there, but I didn't realise this was a "thing".

I don't even care if they track me - what I care about is that they track mostly everybody. Such power should not be underestimated.

I don't think it has a history feature at all though.

The jar is the key new thing, not the emptying.

In fact, literally the only reason it's called "Scots" and not "Inglis", as it originally was, is as the Lowlander Scots gradually developed a sense of national identity separate from the English, they decided that they wanted a national label of their own. But of course, they still didn't want to share a national label or identity with the hated native Celtic-speaking population.

And so "Inglis" became "Scots", while "Scottis" - the native Goidelic language - became "Erse", or Irish.

The whole thing is insidious.

Depending on how you define "dialect" or "language", they may or may not be.

To quote the obligatory quip: "A language is a dialect with an army and navy".

Still, I think it's silly to go all kayfabe here and treat the languages as completely distinct. I have similar thoughts on Slovenian and Slovakian and Flemish.

The Irish and Scottish varieties of the Goidelic language family have far less mutual intelligibility than the English and Scottish varieties of English. Scottish English forms a pretty smooth continuum between "English with a Scottish accent", and what you'd call "Scots" or "Lallans".

But Scottish Gaelic is the tongue that gets the downgrade to "Gaelic", despite it being simply called Scottish for the vast majority of Scotland's history. Despite it literally being the reason for the country's name.

Scottish English was literally only called "Scottis" instead of "Inglis" as the Lowlanders gained a greater sense of national identity and distinctiveness from the English further south. At that point, funnily enough, the Goidelic spoken in Scotland ceased to be called "Scottis", and became "Erse" instead.

It is quite impossible to separate this insistence on distinguishing "Scots" from English, from suppressive efforts towards the indigenous Gaelic language of Scotland. You can see the exact same dynamic in Northern Ireland, where unionists play up the supposed variety of "Scots" spoken by the Ulster planters and their descendants as a fully distinctive language equal to Irish, as a means to delegitimize Irish as the primary indigenous language of the land.

I don't say all of this from a place of antipathy towards the speakers of "Scots". One need only read some Burns to see that the variety of English spoken in Scotland diverged heavily from the varieties spoken further south, and that diversity is beautiful. But the label is politically charged, and fundamentally it is a weapon - and always has been - pointed in the direction of Gaelic-speakers.

    line-height:12pt; height:10px;

People are different, so it's good to have font size and zoom options. Some can go bigger, some can go smaller. I use 80% on a lot of sites, and an extension called 'Zoom Page WE' to remember the settings.

The fact that for a long, long time the vast majority of Firefox's income has come from search engine partnerships, a category google dominates?

Also: Firefox has been rather poor about user privacy. Integrating third party stuff that's difficult to remove, like Pocket, for example.

There was the whole "Looking Glass" debacle where they dropped in a Mr. Robot promotional plugin into Firefox completely silently.

When someone posted in bugzilla about it, the project manager for the plugin made the thread employee-only. It was then changed back to public briefly, before disappearing for good, reportedly being locked so even employees can't see it:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1424977#c21

Ask yourself: "why is a bug files about a promotional plugin so secretive that not even employees can view it?"

BTW: Guess where that project manager used to work before she worked at Mozilla? Answer: an online advertising and analytics firm (according to her LinkedIn profile at the time.)

Google is historically the largest financial contributor to Mozilla (paying for spot as default search engine) and thus has always had leverage on what they do with FF.

There were a few years there where Moz flexed on google by making Yahoo the default, but then switched back to Google last year. My guess is they had to show google they were willing to go elsewhere in order to regain some of their autonomy, which is why it's only in the last couple of years that FF has been willing to add default customer privacy features despite directly hurting FB/Google's ability to track users.

Mozilla gets 90+% of it operating budget via a deal with Google, but Firefox developement is not influenced at all by Chrome. Totally independent.

Big Tech exists for users, not advertisers. Privacy must come first and money must come second. Thats why we have more privacy than ever and Google does not make much money. Government regulation is totally unnecessary. All incentives are aligned toward greater privacy.

Google will "build a more private web" for its advertising targets. Sorry advertisers. :(

1. Also known as "users".

The evolution of languages is fascinating. Circling somewhat back to the topic above: the difference between "dialect" and "language" is a complex subject just as most "speciation" debates in other evolutionary fields have a lot of hidden complexity. "Language" versus "dialect" versus "creole" doesn't have a lot of simple answers though historically that joke that "a language is a dialect with an army" tracks more than it doesn't which is why it is a good joke.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_German_consonant_shift

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_law

There's definitely some similarity between the two Germanic languages, but the North and West Germanic languages had started to diverge by the point of Danelaw, though the Battle of Maldon does record the languages as being mutually comprehensible at that point.

Now with GDPR prompts we’ve come full circle, but instead get the UI of the web site instead of the user agent, allowing all kinds of dark patterns to be exploited and requiring re-prompts all the time for those of us who don’t allow the page to keep cookies in the agent.

Seems like you're replying to the wrong comment. The comment you're replying to is my comment arguing against using "pixels instead of points".

This seems to also be incorrect. px and pt are both absolute units, and 1.33px == 1pt. If you want relative units you need to use something like em.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/CSS/Building_...

A creole is by definition the descendant of a pidgin, a patchwork of words "glued" with some ad hoc grammar, that looks nothing like the grammar of the parent languages. A good example of that would be the Jamaican Patwa basilect:

* Dem a kuuk akara fi im (lit. "them are cook akara for him"; "they're cooking akara for him/her")

* Im a kuuk akara fi dem (lit. "him are cook akara for them"; "he/she's cooking akara for them")

Even if most words are clearly English (except akara - a fritter), the grammar looks nothing alike. It was rebuilt from the scratch. We can't really say the same about EME vs. LME, where there's a clear transition from one to another.

>from "it was never a 'true' creole because England still had an army on paper during the Norman Conquest" to "it stops being a creole when you have an empire and colonies are building their own creoles of your language" and all sorts of other ideas

The presence of an army or "metacreoles" is irrelevant. Kreyol for example would still be a creole, even if the Haitians built a thassalocracy.

What matters is the presence of a linguistic community, that kept speaking their language as they always did. Normans only replaced the local nobility, but the Germanic speakers were still there - speaking among themselves in their Germanic varieties, even if they had to butcher a "pig" or a "cow" because of some fancy noble wanting "porc" or "beof".

Additionally, would they have been listened to?