I kinda think it does. I use a gecko browser as my main, and I use a chromium browser as my backup. I don’t use most of the default features, I just need a handful of extensions, and those are available everywhere.

So to me they’re pretty much the same. Brave is a little different since it embeds an ad blocker, but besides that, the rest of the chromium browsers are equivalent for me.

Nah, in those days I picked Linux. In fact, I got a “win7 ready laptop” and still picked Linux over it. Windows 7 was better than Vista, but it didn’t fix the other issues I had w/ windows.

I honestly think Win10 was better than Win7.

They’re the same in the ways I care about, which is rendering and javascript engines. I’m a developer, that’s what matters to me. I rarely interact with extra features, and I can get most of what’s unique about a given browser with extensions.

Hmm, openSUSE Tumbleweed has been the best OS I’ve ever used, and it’s still available. Windows 7 was marginally better than Vista because they fixed the broken stuff, but it still had all the problems of a Windows OS.

They’re the same browser though. They use the same rendering engine, same JavaScript engine, etc. There are more similarities than differences.

When most people refer to capitalism, they mean free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Many (most?) of the issues you mentioned require government to step in to occur. For example:

• trusts - government structure to protect wealth
• oligopoly - failure of government to prevent collusion (price fixing and whatnot are expressly anti-competitive)
• regulatory capture - government must be complicit since regulations are typically a government thing

I think government has a place in protecting the free market, but it needs to be restrained so it doesn’t get manipulated into destroying the free market. For example, a regulation could protect consumers, but it could also raise the barrier to entry and prevent competition from correcting the underlying problem.

A lot of the issues stem from corporate welfare, where wealthy people are able to manipulate corporate structures to build their own wealth and protect themselves from liability. I think it’s largely those liability protections that encourage anti-competitive behavior. End the protections and courts can meaningfully punish corporations when they break the law.

It’s a natural byproduct though. Assuming a free enough market, you should have several people all supplying the same good. Some will compete on price, some on quality, and some on overall service.

The problems happen when competition evaporates, either from regulations raising the barrier to entry, acquisitions, or resource scarcity. Capitalism assumes people are greedy and pits them against each other to provide better services to everyone. A lack of competition isn’t “capitalism functioning as intended,” but instead the opposite, it means something is preventing capitalism from working as intended.