Like many things, unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties, when it should use facts, evidence, and hard numbers.
So true...
Though I'd say "feelings" is ultimately what always determines the objective... but the means to reach that objective should always be based on facts, evidence and hard numbers. Not tradition nor group loyalties (nor whether any particular group "betrays" any particular preconception we might have had of them).
I honestly couldn't care less what the management of Mozilla thinks.. I only care about the actions they take that affect the software I use. I agree that we're still better off with Firefox. The alternatives at the moment are either worse, lacking or counterproductive to the development of their common base.
I'm keeping my eye on the likes of qutebrowser and ladybird (I would have added netsurf too, but I've been waiting on that one to catch up to the level that I'd need for far too long to have any hopes).
Yeah, I think the confusion is assuming that it's only a genocide when it targets specific subgroups inside a population. It also applies in terms of national groups (whole or in part). This means any attack that intents to kill civilians of a country (or that at least intents to not make any distinction between civilian or not) is a genocide.
For example, that list also includes genocide of Ukrainians by Russia.