>"FireFox IS NOT a frugal option for anything"

(Yet no less so than any other full, multi-platform browser)

>"but if on top of the non-frugal option of firefox you deploy the non-frugal option of full fat adobe acrobat PDF editing, well... you go non-frugal times two. Underpowered machines running on the edge would trip over that edge (pun intended)"

Bingo

A computer without a full browser is almost useless nowadays. A computer without a full PDF editing monster is still very useful and not uncommon at all.

But if you can slide in some of the most important PDF handling into an existing program that everyone will already have on their machine (a browser), with little resources added, then it is a big win. And that is exactly what Mozilla did.

The USA is physically HUGE. Some people just don't grasp how huge. It covers almost the same area as all of Europe, that is split into something like 44 countries. https://www.worldatlas.com/geo...

At some point it will all be fiber here, but it is much more of a challenge compared to most countries with far, far, far less area and far, far fewer customers.

>"As someone who's been on VOIP for around 8 years now, what's wrong with that?"

Because if your ISP goes down, so does your landline phone service. I specifically have a Verizon basic copper line as a hedge against cellular failure (phone, tower, or interconnect), and also ISP failure (which on Cox coax happens far more than my copper line). So I have separate paths for home ISP, home phone, and cell phone.

The problem, as most know, is they keep raising the price of the copper POTS lines. My *metered* (number of calls restricted) line with zero features (no caller ID, no call waiting, no toll calls, etc) is now $47/mo (which a lot of that being local taxes). Which means it costs more than my cell service with T-Mobile that has unlimited calling/texting/toll-calls AND includes lots of data, AND caller ID, call waiting, call forwarding, conferencing, voicemail, etc. Crazy.

Chatbots whose ripply muscles and chiseled features ravish the conversation like a trashy romance novel.

PDF is not primarily a web function, that is true. But as you said, there is a HUGE overlap between PDF and interacting with web sites. The ability to fully handle PDF, including filling forms and editing them in the browser, is majorly convenient. So much so that I welcome all efforts for that in Firefox. Especially under Linux, where the FOSS options for simple PDF editing are not quite as numerous.

I, too, wouldn't mind if it were a separate addon that was included/enabled by default and users could choose to remove it. But having that integrated as a non-addon doesn't offend me much.... Even though I do think it would be better as an addon. Even so, it can currently be turned off/disabled if not wanted and isn't huge.

>"Why is being an ESR so important, you ask?"

I don't need to ask :)

We use Firefox ESR at work as the most stable/predictable version for production use. It means we can focus on policies/config/testing on our machines (several hundred, all Linux) and sites, then roll it out and not have to worry about new "features" popping up that cause confusion for users, require additional training/support, or cause unexpected issues for a reasonable period of time (1 year). It is a good release model. Point updates to ESR are just bug fixes and security fixes, no feature or UI changes.

At home, my machines (all Linux) run the latest non-ESR versions.

It will be like explaining floppy disks and corded telephones to the current generation. That you used to have a physical piece of plastic with a magstrip or chip in it won't be relevant to people 5 years from now.

That you had credit, even if you were a student with no job, is going to be pretty alien to future generations. The vast majority of people will have a debit-like account with hidden fees and sale of spending habits and marketing info to support the business further. It will be like paying rent in order to spend your own money.

When I was a teenager the gas station sold NoDoz. But it also sold Mini-thins, which were better. (ephedrine-based asthma medications sold as an energy supplement)

I'd love to see the research on it. I assume outcomes are better. But it might depend on what "healthy" means. Low BMI (or waist-to-height ratio, which is a better metric IMO). Exercise and activity level probably matters. A healthy diet of fruits and vegetables, or of more lean protein heavy, or more cruciferous vegetables and little fruit. (the latter is my guess at what has the best outcome)

Genetics probably plays the biggest part of heart health. But we hand waive that since we don't have a lot of contorl over it.

I don't understand the desire for energy drinks. Why not get some antioxidants, tannins, polyphenols, etc that are in tea or coffee? especially when it's cheaper and you don't have to deal with sugar or artificial sweeteners. A taste thing perhaps, although I was really disappointed with Red Bull and RockStar. 5-hour energy isn't too bad, since you can just shoot it and I kind of like the flavor. But a case of them is like $50. Which buys me a whole lot of coffee beans and Chinese tea.

I was getting irregular heartbeat having 6 cups a day (nice espresso machine at my old job).

I lost some weight, lowered my blood pressure, added 2 miles of walking to my routine. And a blood pressure related migraine problem went away completely. And drinking 4 cups of coffee a day seems to not trigger any episodes. (plus I have a blood pressure cuff and measure my heart rate now, where as before I never checked it)

Improving one's baseline health is a bigger factor for most of us than finding the magic substance to consume.

I like Starbucks, great place to go if you want to buy a huge glass of milk and sugar. They put a splash of coffee in there for flavor, but many of the drinks include other flavors, syrups, and creams. Drinkable dessert

And people used to scold me for having a donut and black coffee for breakfast every day in high school and college.

You should buy nicer coffee beans - if your coffee tastes bad without milk or sugar and tastes terrible when cold, that is a sign you are buying trash coffee beans.

Ugh...I don't think so....I can't agree.

I have relatives and friends that are coffee snobs, and have explained in great lengths what makes the superior coffee...from bean to brewing style to even the freakin' temperature you steep it.

No matter the quality, it all basically tastes like bitter dark liquid....no flavors really that overpower the bitter.

The only way I generally like coffee, is to booze it up, lots of heavy cream and sweetener so that by the time I'm one with it...tastes like boozy hot chocolate....and they generally frown on one for drinking that on the job site, so I generally only partake at home on weekends.

And no, I don't waste my money on the "good stuff" when I drink it like that, so don't worry.

It's all just bitter to me and needs a ton of additives to make it pleasurable.....everyone has different taste buds you know.

Traditionally it varies by region of the US. In the mid-west, all the diners served a bland, water, liquid they called coffee. When I first went to San Francisco, I was given a cup of something inky black like used motor oil and it was bitter, smokey, aromatic, and wonderful.

It's not a mystery. The compound that has the largest effect is almost certainly resveratrol (a polyphenol). It's is believed to be antitumor, anti-inflammatory, anticarcinogenic, cardioprotective, vasorelaxant, phytoestrogenic and neuroprotective. It's in grape juice too. So the realistic choice is a glass of wine that contains alcohols and some sugars, and a glass of grape juice that only contains sugar. I'd lean more towards just eating fresh red grapes, because the fiber will slow down your digestion so you have a better chance to extract and absorb the resveratrol, given its poor absorption and poor bio-availability.