I'm not sure that you're gonna find "The Answer" that you want on here, but this is my attempt: Vote for someone that isn't the lesser evil. Self Organize on a local level. Fight fascist supporters even when they pretend to be the good guys. Unionize.
<details>
<summary>Spoiler warning for a Becky Chambers book</summary>
There's a scene in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Way_to_a_Small%2C_Angry_Planet where they are worried that something like that might happen.
</details>
So it's fair to say that the Democrats won't sue to keep other leftist parties off the ballot? They'll back leftist candidates even when it's not their "chosen" candidate? They'll actually oppose fascism rather than continue to pave the way for the facists? That they won't keep pushing more funding to facist policies and systems, and will actually dismantle the facists' tools?
Because I continuously see them do the opposite of those things.
which is currently the only other actual option in our political system
Premise: false
Isn't it weird how continuing to do the things that got us here, isn't fixing the problems that were created? I wonder why that could be. I guess we'll never know.
...yes voting for the lesser evil is not the best option it’s still better than just letting the evil evil win.
Who said that we should just let the evil win? I don't see that anywhere.
It's so weird to me how many people accept the binary that's been handed to them. As though the ones that hand you that choice would ever let one of the options be to your advantage.
I've had people knock on my door trying to push stuff that I even agree with: fixing climate change, helping the homeless, anti-trump stuff....
And I still want them to GTFO. If someone interrupts my day, I'm not gonna listen to their pitch at all. It has to be something important, and something that I can help with right now.
Any large successful project is going to need well paid experienced executives.
That's not true at all. There are plenty of large, successfull projects that don't have well paid experienced executives.
Like in your other comment suggesting there’s no evidence that users love chat bots - you can absolutely guarantee that mozilla has conducted some market research indicating that it’s a feature set that will attract more users.
I can not guarantee that at all. They have a long history of doing things to make money, at the cost of users. I don't see why this has to be any different.
However, it’s hubris to suggest that your own assessment of the market is more accurate than mozilla’s - exactly the kind of hubris you’re accusing mozilla of.
That's not what I'm accusing them of at all. What I'm accusing them of is having mis-aligned goals.
My goal would be to have useful, free software that gives agency and power to it's users.
Mozilla's goal is to give their executives a lot of money, by pretending to give a shit about their users, while openly selling them out.
I did something similar: I have a burner-phone, that is only used for dumb apps, and a wifi point that can't reach the internet. But I was hoping to avoid having to do that dance.
It could have been viable with the user base that they had years ago, and it probably could be viable today, but Mozilla keeps throwing away all of their goodwill so that they can keep paying absurd salaries for shitty executives.
It's rare for me, but yeah, it does happen. I usually try Epic Games Launcher, Lutris, then Steam. If it doesn't work with any of those, I ask for my money back.
Are you in Victoria? They have peacocks running around Beacon Hill Park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Hill_Park#Ecology