Wo NSFA?
Never knew it was such a common nickname. TIL.
Ha! My name is also Kevin! But my friends call me Fuck Off!
Considering how many tests Brave does not pass, I'd say that page looks pretty balanced and fair. Also it is consistent with independent studies where Brave came out on top of the list.
My impression is that most opposition against Brave is largely political. And then people try to find technical reasons after the fact, which simply isn't justified in comparison with other browsers.
As other comments have pointed out, I'm not convinced the premise of your question is correct. I'll throw in Slimbook to increase the sample size:
Ok, aber steht das jetzt irgendwie im Widerspruch zu dem was ich gesagt habe und ich sehe einfach nicht wie?
Die Zahl ist zu niedrig. Die Freien Wähler und deren Wähler sind jetzt auch nicht unbedingt die hellsten Kerzen auf der Torte, Und für die CSU ist das mindestens höchst diskutabel.
Funny how you do not address most of what I said ... so, disingenuous it is.
Regarding optional features, I more used them as a ~~segue~~ red herring into the last three links
ftfy
Nothing good will come of this conversation, so I'll stop it right here. Have a nice day.
Being chromium based it
Don't get me wrong, I am using Firefox, but your entire post is pretty disingenuous. Criticizing Brave over privacy concerns and then suggesting Firefox instead requires disingenuity or a special kind of ignorance and/or stupidity. Firefox has had 10 times as many privacy "mishaps" as Brave with all the "experiments" of corporate affiliates they shipped to users unannounced. There's a reason there are so many forks of Firefox.
Pretty much everything you criticize about Brave is entirely optional.
Then you title a link as Brave "getting ousted as spyware", and the linked to page does not oust Brave as spyware at all. You would do good to adopt some of the more neutral/factual tone of that page.
And in parts that page is pretty ridiculous, too: complaining about what is set as the default search engine (the same as Firefox, btw). Who the fuck cares what search engine is set by default? Just change it. Opt out of everything you do not like. If there's stuff you cannot opt out of which is bad, we can talk about that. But arguing about optional features is ridiculous.
Edit: little add-on: Brave factually has better out of the box (no plugins) privacy protection than Firefox: https://privacytests.org/
Sorry, I am too much of a KDE user to answer that question. In Discover you can add, remove, and order remotes via settings in the GUI. I'd assume it would be the same in Gnome Software, but I might assume wrong. If your distro does not ship it by default, you'll need to install a plugin.
Boost will sometimes scale images in a weird way, making them look like low resolution renders without antialiasing. This behavior can be observed in this post: https://lemm.ee/post/10597386
The image looks fine when opened in the web view: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a8f1dd3c-6474-4000-9cf1-c1d76ef4c25d.jpeg
In boost it looks like this, even when zooming in:
First of all, thank you so much for doing Boost for Lemmy. Boost was what made reddit nice, while their app and web ui went down the drain. I am super happy to now be able to use Boost to access lemmy! The app already seems to be quite solid (haven't seen a bug, yet).
The only minor issue I have is that Boost for Reddit and Boost for Lemmy have the same set of icons and are quite difficult to distinguish:
Though, that can be easily worked around by changing the icon for one of them via settings. Maybe the default icons + a small super imposed logo/mascot of the respective platform would be a nice idea (there might be copyright issues).
The terms cult and culture have the same problem(s) as sect and religion. There is no one clear-cut definition, but many competing definitions, most of which are kind of vague or ambiguous. Both sect and cult are usually used in us versus them narratives. If you pick a random person and try to discuss if and why something is a cult/sect or culture/religion you are almost guaranteed to run into unresolvable conflict because you'll likely have different definitions in mind. The obvious solution is to settle on a common definition beforehand, but that will just cause the next conflict because there are so many and there is no obviously correct one.
People often bring up an aspect of control as the defining characteristic of cults/sects. Does that make all states cults? Does that mean every major Christian denomination was a sect 200 years ago?
Another common definition is that of a new group splitting off from the established group. Does that mean the entirety of Christianity is just a jewish sect?
Most definitions, when applied rigorously, imply that every culture/religion has been a cult/sect at least for some time in the past. And here comes the trouble: Most people from some culture/religion will provide you with a definition for cult/sect, when arguing about it, but will not accept when you apply it to theirs and point out that by that definition it either is a cult/sect, or was 200/500/1000 years ago. Because most people use those terms to denote otherness possibly even in a pejorative way.
In an academic context (for example anthropology or history) the distinction between cult and culture or sect and religion can be useful when a definition is given in the context and it is applied consistently. Outside of academia those terms aren't very useful beyond instigating people against each other or minorities, solidifying circle jerks, or starting flame wars.
My nonprofessional take on it:
Every culture started out as a cult and all cultures are or have been horrid given the opportunity.
Every religion started out as a sect and all the sects' and religions' fairy tales are equally ridiculous when observed from the outside.
The distinction between cult and culture, and sect and religion, has no net positive benefit outside of academia and should be avoided outside of fiction.