Ok, here’s what is subsidised, assuming you speak German:

https://www.verbraucherzentrale.de/wissen/gesundheit-pflege/krankenversicherung/alle-kassenleistungen-der-zahnmedizin-im-ueberblick-12921

Call that nonsense if you wish, I’m not going to enter into a discussion of that kind.

That’s not at all how it works in Germany, though. Dental treatments are paid, as is medication. There is a surcharge for medication, which is capped at 10 Euros. And some dental options, which are not strictly necessary (debatable in many cases, I’ll give you that!) are not included. Physio and optical costs are also included.

Some of the payments require a doctor’s prescription in order to be accepted, but I would call that pretty fucking universal.

I did provide a link where both the British and the American pronunciation treat the c as an s sound. They have the IPA as /əˌsəʊ.siˈeɪ.ʃən/ for both dialects. “soc” does contain the c, not the t.

As I said, I’m not debating that the t in “tion” is pronounced that way (at least I tried to be clear, maybe I muddled it even more), but I have always pronounced the c as an s sound, and it appears Cambridge agrees with me.

Where is “association” pronounced like that, if I may ask? I could only find the pronunciation I’m familiar with, which is this: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pronunciation/english/association

To maybe be more clear: you are implying that the c in “soc” is pronounced like a “sh” when it’s the t in “tion”.

(Edit: missed some letters.)

You’re absolutely right, but that’s the pre-smartphone era, not the pre-cellphone era.

Ok, I have an experiment for you. Go touch some really hot chili peppers, then wash you hands. With soap. Three times, if you like. Then rub your eyes. Then tell me that felt absolutely fine. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Capsaicin is non-soluble in water and basically doesn’t wash off.

Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point.

Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim?

LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It’s a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.)