Remember, Zerodium revealed a 0day in all Tor Browser v7 and under once v8 had been released https://twitter.com/Zerodium/status/1039127214602641409
That's irrelevant, per the guidelines.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
1. I responded to the strongest possible interpretation based on what was said.
2. How is that irrelevant?
If, for whatever reason, your goal is to conceal conflict or negatives in general, I suggest you pick on someone else.
This means (not exclusively) that you have to first answer yourself to that doubt you expressed vis-a-vis the post that originated it, and attempt finding an acceptable interpretation of the original post. Your reply shall reflect that.
(If your «strongest possible interpretation» clashes with the assumption of good faith, you will have to think again, and longer. Surely, your reply will reflect that.)
Contextually, for example: the poster did not recommend a non-identity concealing product over an identity concealing product /in general/ - the poster noted that the way the identity concealing product is developed/distributed, it is easier for exploitable bugs to be fixed comparatively later - the user must be aware of this.
Also:
> conceal conflict
No. "Manage conflict productively", to achieve some result. «For whatever reason»: efficiency, efficacy, productivity, civilization, enthalpy (fighting entropy), "keeping the place in good order".
Why can't you assume good faith on my part?
My point is making assumptions about intent leads to boring discussion. See the moderators (dang) post history and what he has to reply to, for examples.
There is a guideline on HN about replying to the best possible interpretation.
Doing so diffuses trolls and encourages people who didn’t explain well the first time to expand on their thinking.
It is also super pleasant to read posts of this style.
You seem to entail from the formulation of that guideline («...easier to criticize») that only strawman arguments are discriminated: too literal. For that matter, one could have mentioned «curious conversation», «shallow dismissals», «insinuations». You should take the guidelines as a whole - the intention - instead of just their formulated parts (which are not a lean complete formal logical corpus from which all consequences can be entailed through sheer syntactical deduction). Literally, a mandate is there against what «degrades discussion».
Privacy depends on security. Firefox is about 3-5 years behind security level of Chrome (Sandbox, Fuzzing efforts, hardening efforts, source code reviews, etc.).
When running in Safest mode, it's essentially just rendering HTML/CSS/images: anything that involves convoluted decoding (video, webfonts, scripts) is disabled. Treating your web browser as an environment for declarative pages is best practice for security: no matter how many layers of sandboxing you'll use, people will find holes.
So apart from a few bypasses like the parent comment explained, TBB is decades ahead any other browser's security level out there (except for your favorite CLI browser over Tor which has roughly the same properties).