Depends where you. In some places (I think it was Japan?) Apples practice of not allowing alternative browser engines was deemed anticompetitive and outlawed

Is it a design flaw? Or is it just false advertising? If I sell you a vacuum by telling you it can mop your floor, is the problem with the vacuum or the way I’m selling the product?

Yeah everyone seems out to get Firefox lately. I almost wonder if its the Chromium gang tryna slander the competition

It sucks and its at the point now where were hitting diminishing returns so I’m not sire if it sill get better

Okay. I didn’t realize that’s how it worked over there. Thanks for sharing.

So in high school languages are just an elective, not a requirement?

I see. That’s a little surprising to me. I didn’t realize that there is basically no language education there

I see thanks for clarifying

Do you guys not have any language classes in the public school system at all in the US? Not trying to be rude I just dont know how things work there

Same experience for me. Once in highschool (at an English speaking school) you could choose to branch off from French and learn either Spanish or Japanese (or all the above) if you wanted to.

Do Americans really not learn any other languages in school? I was under the impression that Spanish lessons were part of the public school system down there. I’m not trying to be rude I’m genuinely asking

Well I think that would depend, right? If you’re from a region of the States where there’s more economic activity with Mexico, then sure it makes more sense to learn Spanish. But there are also areas in the States where you have comparatively more economic activity with Canada, then it makes more sense to learn French.

Can we at least agree that it makes more sense for an American to learn French than Portuguese, contrary to what was suggested earlier in the conversation?

Quebec is one of the most economically active regions in Canada. But we can out that aside for now because, again, Quebec is not the only francophone region in Canada. The province I’m from doesn’t even recognize French as an official language, yet there are people who live here who are born here, are educated here, and work here, and die here, all without ever achieving more that basic English proficiency because they are so immersed in the Francophone subculture here.

So if what you are worried about is legal frameworks, then yes, you don’t need your lawyer to be bilingual to do business with Canada in some cases. But that doesn’t diminish the fact that the people who you hope to do business with, and your potential customer base, might not know anything beyond broken English (if they know any English at all).

Quebec is in Canada, it’s also not the only Francophone region in Canada. There are also most certainly major economic zones in Canada where you would need to know French to conduct business. And I assume you could also hire a translator for Spanish, no?

Is Canada not economically relevant to the continent? French is an official language of Canada, on equal footing as English. By law anything sold in Canada must include both English and French labelling, software, instruction manuals etc. For parts of the US that trade a lot with Canada, French is at least as economically relevant as Spanish.

There is really only one major language which is relevant to neighbors

Spanish

French Canadians would like to have a word with you

You could argue that our way of life in wealthy countries is impossible without the exploitation of the third-world. Does that mean we are a higher class of humans? No.

Let’s just strive to be as harmless as possible and leave our grand philosophical ideas about who is better than who aside.

Compare: it’s rape to have sex with someone underage, but two underage people can have sex with each other without it being rape.

Not everything is black and white. You are painting a picture where we have two options: (1) cause as much harm as we please and not worry about the consequences, or (2) cause no harm at all by eradicating our species from the face of the Earth (which would actually cause a lot of harm to members of our species but we’ll sidestep that for now).

But this is of course a false dichotomy. Because there are degrees to this. A vegan diet is undoubtably less harmful, both in its carbon footprint and in the direct harm in causes to other species. So if someone wants to reduce the amount of harm they are causing it’s the way to go. So why try to diminish that with this ridiculous dichotomy between death to all humans or unmitigated animal torture? If someone wants to decrease of amount of harm they are causing shouldn’t we be encouraging this sort of prosocial mindset?