naught

That's one way to look at it. If a website works perfectly on chromium, but not firefox, why is this the website's fault?

I remember trying to style a range input slider a few years ago and it worked everywhere except firefox. I also had problems with the style of the recently (inverted colors, wrong font). Not a big deal, I still drive firefox daily, but there are idiosyncrasies

If you're on an apple silicon mac, docker performance can be atrocious if you are emulating. It can also be inconvenient to work with Docker volumes and networks. Python already has pyenv and tools like poetry and rye. Unless there's a need for Docker, I personally would generally avoid it (tho I do almost all my deployments via docker containers)

This is more common than you think. It's usually not broken entirely, but firefox constantly breaks styling/css stuff on websites I use and build. I've had a few sites ask me to switch browsers because firefox doesn't support x y or z feature too

edit: for example, WebGPU support is currently lacking in FF https://github.com/gpuweb/gpuweb/wiki/Implementation-Status

I use firefox, but I'm not blind to its few problems

I am not remotely arguing against subsistence farming or hunting. Hell even hunting meat yourself that you consume. I wouldn't do it willingly, but that doesn't make it inherently immoral.

People are detached from the method of making their meat. It is far more unpleasant than most want to think about. The animals are mistreated. It's hard to argue they aren't. That's really the point

I am underestimating no one. I do not remotely doubt humanity's capacity for violence and depravity. I am saying that we as people can choose to minimize harm and violence (to each other, animals we farm, etc)

edit: I should also point out that we are FAR past the point of "subsistence" with our meat consumption. We consume more meat now than ever before. There are many costs associated with this to our health, the animals we eat, the planet ...

You are literally arguing the definition of the word "cruelty" rather than dealing with the substance. I appreciate the engagement, but this is where I'll stop. I hope you consider the conflicts in your worldview and work toward improving the world for yourself and the beings that inhabit it.

You do not need meat to survive

Do you buy blood diamonds? Do you buy grass fed beef? Free range eggs? Do you buy fast fashion? You have agency over your choices. Just because you don't slaughter the animals with your own hands doesn't mean they are free from blood.

To willingly inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient beings is cruelty. This is a semantic argument that ignores reality

Farm less meat. Farm meat in a way that minimizes suffering.

The systems by which we produce meat are intentional. Just because the people who set them up and benefit from them don't care doesn't mean these farms can exist outside morality.

Inflicting pain on an animal to save its life is directly related to your point. Raising animals in objectively painful and squalid conditions so they can be slaughtered is not at all the same.

You are equating saving the life of a human to the torture and slaughtering of an animal. They are not analogous

I am pointing out a dichotomy. I am appealing to your sense of logic. Why do you feel emotionally attached to dogs? Are they smarter than cows? Do they feel more or less? Is being cruel to a dog worse than being cruel to another animal?

By your logic, dog meat farms are fine -- amoral. The cruelty does not matter because it's inherent.