Viewing profile — 48309248302
48309248302
HN member- Joined
- Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 6:50 AM UTC
- HN karma
- 218
- Public activity
- 37 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About 48309248302
No profile information was provided.
Recent public activity
-
comment
Comment #27669407
Sometimes essential medication costs USD $100,000 per year or more.
-
comment
Comment #27554274
https://i.reddit.com/
-
comment
Comment #27524139
I guess it depends on what you're building. For me the graphql is one of the most useful features. I've only used Next a little, but much prefer Gatsby. I don't think Next is bad t…
-
comment
Comment #27519702
> Gatsby can use TS, but you need to set it up I'm not sure how long ago you tried Gatsby, but TypeScript doesn't require setup anymore. Just change the file extensions to .tsx/.ts…
-
comment
Comment #23484269
Do you think that Wikipedia doesn't want traffic? When people land on Wikipedia it creates brand recognition and the opportunity for them to ask for support from those visitors, wh…
-
comment
Comment #23400760
I'm not sure what it has to do with breaking up Google. I'm just saying that they are leading users to think that Google will stop tracking them if they turn on Google's private br…
-
comment
Comment #23397973
I think that would be a disingenuous argument from Google. Google is directly receiving the analytics data and then feeding only a portion of it to the website. They know that user…
-
comment
Comment #23397413
Google is a company. Their tracking code isn't a website. It doesn't mention to users that that their private browsing mode doesn't actually protect users from their other products…
-
comment
Comment #23397344
One more to add: > Google
-
comment
Comment #23397304
Google is not the ambiguous other "websites and ISPs." They are the ones making the claim that you are in private mode with a Google product, even though you aren't. Users don't kn…
-
comment
Comment #23397231
It's hard to make that argument when you control the browsing device that tells users that they are in private mode, but then identify specific devices and users from the other end…
-
comment
Comment #19692331
The point there is that is it not supported by Mozilla. Google has strong-armed publishers into implementing their websites in a restricted Google format that speeds up websites ju…
-
comment
Comment #19683348
Google is unethically abusing their power against non-Chromium browsers like Firefox. Speed matters in the eyes of users, even if we individually block AMP. See the link below for …
-
comment
Comment #19682523
Being penalized in the search results is outright coercion, not an incentive.
-
comment
Comment #19682315
It only works in Chrome. The Web has now been split in two, and you now have to use Google Chrome to be on the faster version. Google is shamefully abusing its power in several pla…
-
comment
Comment #19682297
They have been trying to make it so that users can't tell if they are on real webpages or AMP pages, and it looks like they finally implemented it. AMP is about Google, tracking, a…
-
comment
Comment #19682264
Web publishers don't necessarily want their content decoupled from their own servers, but they don't have a choice now if they depend on traffic from Google.
-
comment
Comment #19682252
AMP is a threat to the entire Web itself. It forcibly takes control away from web publishers and attempts to turn the Web into a Google product. Type "amp sucks" into a search engi…
-
comment
Comment #19680158
Many people use tools to block third party JS from loading. AMP can't be called privacy-friendly while making it extremely difficult to use when tracking (AMP Analytics) is blocked…
-
comment
Comment #19680117
There are legitimate (privacy/speed) reasons to not load AMP's JavaScript while still not turning of JavaScript entirely. Google does have the capability to know when you're on an …
-
comment
Comment #19679984
Google can't tell if a link has been clicked if JavaScript is off and the `ping` attribute is removed, so AMP removes privacy there. By forcing web publishers to host their content…
-
comment
Comment #19679758
There is a difference between the web publisher controlling that abstraction and a web publisher that has been strong armed into one abstraction or another.
-
comment
Comment #19679742
It's not written like someone trying to kick a hornet's nest. It's written like someone who has been conditioned inside of a culture that has begun to view the Web as a Google prod…
-
comment
Comment #19679729
Signed HTTP Exchanges? https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
-
comment
Comment #19679726
You should take a hard look at what you're doing. It's breaking the web by enabling Google to embrace, extend, and extinguish. AMP and Signed HTTP Exchanges aren't agreed upon web …