It’s really not ambiguous. Anyone can fork Firefox, make any changes they want, and release it with different branding. This is the goal of open source.

The term you’re looking for is free software. By making this change Firefox is no longer respecting the freedom of their users. That’s the “F” in FOSS. It’s possible for Firefox to remain open source without being free software.

Ah yes, a sort of cleansing operation.

Of people of a particular ethnicity.

I wonder if there’s a term for that…

If your city is only designed for drivers, it’s no surprise that people will want to drive places. When you remove parking minimums, you also need to prioritize transit and micromobility accessibility, so people are actually incentivized to switch modes. Cities can and are making this shift successfully: here’s one example.

You really ought to get on the mathfinder train

They are more privacy focused, but they are not “better” in an unqualified way. Mullvad and Tor especially are not recommendable for daily usage without significant asterisks, they have some features disabled and if you modify their settings at all, add extensions, or even log in to websites, you ruin their anonymity features.

Librewolf is nice, but it’s basically just Firefox with Arkenfox pre-applied, and it lacks automatic updates which are important for security. If you have a package manager that’s better, but by definition you’ll still get updates slower than using Firefox and applying Arkenfox yourself. For instance Firefox 129 released on August 6, Librewolf 129 on August 10.

One time I brought a horse into a bar and they called the cops to kick me out. I can’t believe comedians didn’t warn me I wasn’t allowed to do that irl. We really do live in a society

Do you have a source for him moving to restrict sales? I see there was a House bill about that a couple weeks ago, but it didn’t involve Biden.