Because in desktop usage, you don't care about fractions of a watt per hour. But it is extremely annoying when power saving features kick in when you don't want them to, and slow system down or suspend/terminate processes you actually want running.

You can. You just need to bake it into ISO you install from. It's much more difficult to get rid of that crap once it's installed.

Depends on battery management of that specific model. Sometimes it's a bit better, and sometimes it's a lot worse.

In general Linux will run less background crap (telemetry etc) so CPU will spend longer in lower power states. But model specific optimizations will be worse.

"Cinematic 24 fps is back!"

No.

"We intentionally made it bad".

Ok. Was your intention to smear the engine?

I believe that "fuck you dear user, sites breaking on you is a you problem" is very much nonsense when it comes to browsers.

You're correct in principle, but this needs going deeper into relevant human traits.

People that could push this sort of a change require to have a combination of a specific traits. First one is ability to do complex future planning and sacrificing short term for it. Very small percentage of people in total are capable of this. A large plurality if not outright majority barely has a conception of the future if at all. Of those that remain, clear majority has problems tolerating the sacrifice (see: obesity "epidemic") needed for long term gain. Even when gain is massive elevation in quality of life and survival.

And even for people who can do what you describe, the gain must be clear and unambiguous. To go beyond that, you need to go to a different trait, that being risk tolerance. This trait is independent from the future planning one.

Finally you have the actual ability to what is needed to secure those long term gains.

So the people who could tolerate high risk and are capable of imagining the future and capable of sacrificing in short term for it and have the ability will genuinely invest only in things that have a massive return. Because there's so few of them, and so many opportunities they can direct their unique talent set towards. So because they walk rather than crawl for lulz, they will invest their time and effort only in most efficient things.

Causes like you speak of have such low returns compared to alternatives where such people could orient their effort towards, these people will not even look at them twice. All you get is ideological, highly disagreeable weirdoes who ride generally lack one or several of required traits to enact the kind of thing you are talking about at scale you're talking about.

And so, we get status quo. Because it's human.

It explains a large percentage of all human behavior, including your own. For example, it explains why you walk to most places instead of crawling to them, even though you could do both. One is much less resource intensive than other.

Just to clarify, do you believe people to be blank slates, fully socially constructed?

If you're really into the whole "need resources for technical support for things support for which was removed in Chromium project", you want supermium.

It run on windows XP, even today, and project's goal is to integrate win2k support with modern chromium based browser eventually.

Expecting people to take the hard way instead of easy way is pants on the head level of retarded. We're biologically evolved to seek such ways out, because those that didn't got outcompeted by those that did.

That would require same engine to power all browsers, and all browsers having same rendering, same plugins, etc.

This is actually Google's wet dream. It means everyone gets full arrays of ads. And it's very much the exact thing that power users do NOT want.

That moment when you're so utterly ignorant of reality and so captured by your desperate need to be right, that you don't know that biggest hatreds fester among people who are very similar to one another.

Mizrahi Jews and Arabs. Pakistanis and Indians. Russians and Ukrainians. Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks. Hutus and Tutsis. The list goes on.

If you want a browser by same people that made Opera before it became Chinesium spyware, you want Vivaldi, not Opera.

How awful is it nowadays? I stopped using it a few years after its compatibility with sites started to break as a matter of routine, and dev would consistently keep telling people to "tell the site owner to make page compatible with Pale Moon" on his forums.

Did his attitude change?