50/50 splits don't work well in practice. Splits right in the middle of the eyes. And assumes all tiles have the same importance and deserve equal screen space. Whereas with large central monitor the positioning and split ratios are very important. 50/50 rarely works well. 60/40, 70/30, are more sensible
There are no universal truths?
Math is quite universal. For all intents and purposes empiristic measurements have margin of error small enough to be more than just a subjective experience. In fact you are experiencing a universal truth right now through a small and a distorted glass. Saying that there's no universal truth anywhere is just full on defeatist poo-poo.
It’s not defeatist at all. Empiricism derives truth from sensory experiences, which are by definition subjective. Rationalism derives truth from logic, and all statements in logic are constrained from discovering universal truth by the munchausen trilemma.
I think what you’re talking about would be better described as a personal truth, which _is_ a leap of faith.
Calling sensory experiences subjective subtly implies that they carry zero bits of useful information and that everything is up to interpretation. That is profoundly defeatist. Whereas I maintain that there is a universal truth, and that individual sensory experiences are mere samples. The more samples from as many sensory devices and vantage points the closer your approximation to the universal truth it is.
Given a person A and person B, while both have a very small subset of the 'univeral truth' one of them is closer to it than the other approximation. And better yet the combined sample sets are likely to be even closer.
Breaking "old" add-ons with no working replacement and no way to implement quite a few of them killed FF for me. What those idiots at Mozilla don't get is that without the add-ons their stock browser is no better than any other.
Firefox broke off backwards compatibility with massive amount of extensions - without them stock FF is quite shite and unusable. Not only that, some of the features of the old extensions are impossible to implement in the new extension engine.
Personally, I port my Chrome extension to a Firefox addons without much trouble, except for the stringent review process by a human developer which raised a lot my opinion of the firefox community.
The new extension engine shipped to the general public as part of Firefox 57 in November 2017.
While magicalbeans may be a bit hyperbolic in their criticism, as a web developer who uses all the major browsers, I am still annoyed every day by little things that are worse in Firefox since that time. It is a reasonable and valid criticism that many useful extensions were broken by the change and that a significant part of the functionality that was lost can't be reimplemented in the new system. The claims that the general reduction in functionality through loss of previous extensions would be a temporary problem and would be corrected as the new model evolved over subsequent versions have proven to be optimistic.
It is also fair to say that claims of extensions being better contained and more stable in the new model have been exaggerated. I see far more problems caused by the smaller number of extensions I now use than I ever saw before, and I have done consistently ever since the change, through three more major versions of Firefox itself and several updates to most of the extensions.
I appreciate the intent to make Firefox faster and more reliable and more secure. Surely no-one would argue that those aren't good things. But the fact is, a lot of stuff did get broken and hasn't been fixed, and for the class of users who valued Firefox for its customisability, it is a worse browser today than it was 9 months ago.
> some of the features of the old extensions are impossible to implement in the new extension engine
I am stuck on FF 53 (and reinstalling it whenever automatic updates sneak past me) since it still has the XUL API Pentadactyl uses to receive keyboard input[0]. The new WebExtension API don't expose the same level of functionality, so it can't be simply ported to them as is.
One approach to coping with quantum is to run 2 (or more)
Firefox profiles, one for the old, or ESR, or pre-quantum
executable; and the other for Quantum:
/usr/bin/firefox53 -P esr
/usr/bin/firefox -P quantum
and if you want access to the same saved bookmarks,
just use Firefox Sync to match them up.
It won't help with Pentadactyl, but folks with other use cases may find it useful.
The Mac OS X desktop metaphor does attempt to solve this somewhat, the last application in focus on a particular monitor, is presented within the menubar on that monitor - regardless of whether or not the program is currently been interacted with.
For example: currently I have 4 displays with a program full screen in each, each Menu Bar has the menu options for each program.
All inactive programs present in the menu bars on the other monitors are greyed out - the effect of this can be seen in the linked image (I have minimised the other windows because work business) - https://imgur.com/MM8sQdt
I have Safari Tech Preview [the currently active window], Outlook, iTerm and Firefox (the display for which isn't included in the screenshot because it it's a vertical panel with odd dimensions), open on a monitor a piece.
