121–130 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thus only 0.1% of users know what javascript is and it's okay with it. That is an interesting random stats, seems pretty realistic. I at least liked it.
Thats the wrong take on the stats. It means among the ones who know, half of them dont want it. This is more telling that looking at the 0.1%.
This is coming right after the reCAPTCHA v3 announcement https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331159 Sorry, you don't have enough Google Points to browse the web. Please enable JavaScript and install Google Chrome.
Recent new version of Google Mail flat out doesn't work to any usable standard in Firefox. Ten seconds to open a new 'compose mail' window. A context menu does a multi-second HTTP fetch before showing. The previous version worked great. Either the dev team has just given up on quality or they're intentionally goading me into installing Chrome. I'm not going to play that game -- at this point Thunderbird works better.
Where? The only one I can trigger that does any kind of network is in the inbox, and that's only to get some icons. The text for the options is already loaded.
I still think modern websites over use javascript too often and should use markup over code whenever possible.
And of course no one wants to go back to iframes to load dynamic content. Or should we?
ITT: people dramatically under-estimating the risk to their accounts from credential stuffing and dramatically over-estimating their security benefits from not running JS. They're probably right that not running JS is privacy accretive, but only if you consider their individual privacy, and not the net increase in privacy for all users by being able to defend accounts against cred stuffing using JS. The privacy loss…
Note that I do use js, because it makes life easier. But you got to realize that not using js will at some point protect you against an XSS vuln. They are that prevalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thus only 0.1% of users know what javascript is and it's okay with it. That is an interesting random stats, seems pretty realistic. I at least liked it.
Thats the wrong take on the stats. It means among the ones who know, half of them dont want it. This is more telling that looking at the 0.1%.
Google will be in hot water if humanity ever decides to take on javascript.. assuming the source for those states aren't someone's ass.
Amusingly, the article is perfectly readable with javascript off, but with only first-party js allowed, it's blank.
Ohh that is interesting. Anyone know why that is?
This is coming right after the reCAPTCHA v3 announcement https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331159 Sorry, you don't have enough Google Points to browse the web. Please enable JavaScript and install Google Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would google not at least have an incentive they'd have to work against, to add tracking into their sign in pages? They make all of their money off of ads and they do that by tracking people to target ads. You might as well say people shouldn't take precautions swimming around sharks, because it's rare and be surprising if they attacked
> Why would google not at least have an incentive they'd have to work against, to add tracking into their sign in pages? You're signing in . That's literally asking them to identify you across pages so you can have access to them.
Signing in is literally asking them to identify you on one page so you can have access to that page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thus only 0.1% of users know what javascript is and it's okay with it. That is an interesting random stats, seems pretty realistic. I at least liked it.
Thats the wrong take on the stats. It means among the ones who know, half of them dont want it. This is more telling that looking at the 0.1%.
Which, of course, isn't true to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passwords can be hashed directly client-side with javascript, which is way more secure than sending them clear on the wire, so i dont disagree with Google's stance here and dont understand the hate
Hashing passwords client side has no benefit if a site uses HTTPS. If a site uses HTTP, then hashing the password client-side and sending it up to the server is equivalent to sending a clear text password. If an attacker can already read your traffic, what is stopping them from using your password's hash to log-in to your account?