Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

rudism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#241

Post by e12e »

Marsymars wrote: post #132
e12e wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Print and screen are not the same - as print is reflective, while screens are typically a light source. E-ink is closer to (low resolution, poor quality paper) print.

> E-ink is closer to (low resolution, poor quality paper) print. Was curious so I checked - high-end ereaders are 300 PPI, which tends to be the minimum PPI for good quality print.

Granted, dpi and ppi aren't the same - but print would normally be more like 1200 dpi. Even low en laser printers are 600 dpi. So while you might print a 300 ppi image, you'd probably print it at much higher than 300 dpi. E-ink screens are in a kind of middleground - they certainly have lower contrast and resolution than movable type (depending a bit on paper quality, but compared to say printed books).

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#242

Post by jeegsy »

themacguffinman wrote: post #211
monadic2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be more sympathetic to your worldview if the quality of the free services online weren't clearly lowered to service ad views. Just think how useful google could be if you could filter out commercial results, or import a domain blocklist, or control the ranking algorithm. Think how usable social media would be if it weren't a way to turn money into "engagement". Think how much better news sites would be if jou…

Think of how small and untransformative Google would be if only middle and upper class people afforded or bothered to pay for it because it charged a fee for its sophisticated services. Think how useless social media would be if it primarily connected together wealthy individuals that can pay the upkeep needed to operate a sophisticated global network while those who most need a voice cannot. Think of how much worse…

Well put but hindsight being 20/20, it might have been nice to know before hand that the price of letting a 'poor child in Detroit' have accessible browsing was the relentless and pernicious invasion of privacy that 'free' internet provides. More importantly, all those examples you presented seem like what happens now in slightly obvious forms e.g. blue checkmarks, newspaper paywalls etc.

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#243

Post by r3muxd »

BrendanEich wrote: post #215
Angeo34 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware being based on Chromium means you cannot fake many vectors? Even Tor browser isn't able to spoof e everything Chromium hardly can spoof 1% of what Tor/Firefox can. You will maybe have a randomized fingerprint but it doesn't matter if 99% of other fingerprinting vectors are Stoll left open. Just look at their github. They have fingerprinting bugs that are beyond uniquely identifying (fonts best example)…

Chromium is just C++ and it can be hacked. The claim that something "isn't solvable through Chromium" shows magical thinking. If a vector can be randomized or otherwise arms-raced vs. the remote adversary via C++, then "Chromium" is not an obstacle for Brave. Consider the case of extensions, where your point would have been valid if you'd written "Chromium extensions". Fingerprinting can be done many ways, but most a…

Brave is a really tough sell on mobile. It doesn't have mobile extension support like Kiwi and Firefox on Android, or a horizontal tab switcher like Bromite. On top of that, the adblocker is worse than uBO and there's this shady cryptocurrency stuff.

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#244

Post by Angeo34 »

BrendanEich wrote: post #215
Angeo34 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware being based on Chromium means you cannot fake many vectors? Even Tor browser isn't able to spoof e everything Chromium hardly can spoof 1% of what Tor/Firefox can. You will maybe have a randomized fingerprint but it doesn't matter if 99% of other fingerprinting vectors are Stoll left open. Just look at their github. They have fingerprinting bugs that are beyond uniquely identifying (fonts best example)…

Chromium is just C++ and it can be hacked. The claim that something "isn't solvable through Chromium" shows magical thinking. If a vector can be randomized or otherwise arms-raced vs. the remote adversary via C++, then "Chromium" is not an obstacle for Brave. Consider the case of extensions, where your point would have been valid if you'd written "Chromium extensions". Fingerprinting can be done many ways, but most a…

I hope you aren't the real Brendan Eich. You should be aware yourself how impossible it is to prevent font and window decoration fingerprinting properly. Reading those vectors takes ten lines of JS code total. Faking those vectors takes thousands of lines of cpp code. I wonder which one is harder.

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#245

Post by Angeo34 »

BrendanEich wrote: post #215
Angeo34 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware being based on Chromium means you cannot fake many vectors? Even Tor browser isn't able to spoof e everything Chromium hardly can spoof 1% of what Tor/Firefox can. You will maybe have a randomized fingerprint but it doesn't matter if 99% of other fingerprinting vectors are Stoll left open. Just look at their github. They have fingerprinting bugs that are beyond uniquely identifying (fonts best example)…

Chromium is just C++ and it can be hacked. The claim that something "isn't solvable through Chromium" shows magical thinking. If a vector can be randomized or otherwise arms-raced vs. the remote adversary via C++, then "Chromium" is not an obstacle for Brave. Consider the case of extensions, where your point would have been valid if you'd written "Chromium extensions". Fingerprinting can be done many ways, but most a…

Again. If it's so easy to modify Chromium code to hide for example fonts and window decoration and css leakers why didn't you do it yet? The bugs are open since at least 3 years.

I mean benefit of doubt is one thing but you claim it can be done while it's hard to read it out with JS (which it isn't it's a ten line script to identify all of those vectors). But the cpp code that requires thousands of lines of edits is easy?

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#246

Post by Angeo34 »

BrendanEich wrote: post #215
Angeo34 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are aware being based on Chromium means you cannot fake many vectors? Even Tor browser isn't able to spoof e everything Chromium hardly can spoof 1% of what Tor/Firefox can. You will maybe have a randomized fingerprint but it doesn't matter if 99% of other fingerprinting vectors are Stoll left open. Just look at their github. They have fingerprinting bugs that are beyond uniquely identifying (fonts best example)…

Chromium is just C++ and it can be hacked. The claim that something "isn't solvable through Chromium" shows magical thinking. If a vector can be randomized or otherwise arms-raced vs. the remote adversary via C++, then "Chromium" is not an obstacle for Brave. Consider the case of extensions, where your point would have been valid if you'd written "Chromium extensions". Fingerprinting can be done many ways, but most a…

Please can you then explain why the font fingerprinting bug and window decoration/css leak hasn't been addressed since the last 3/4 years since it has been recognized by your devs as a issue?

That Chinese girl (sorry don't know your name) explicitly said it's too hard years ago but 4 years later you sat it's possible yet the bug is still left open?

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#247

Post by onyva »

jfengel wrote: post #240
onyva wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free is NOT the problem. Free is the “business model” of the internet. Just because some people want to monetize it doesn’t mean we need to give up and just let them do what they want. Selling ads is not the purpose of the internet. Content created to sell ads is most of the time garbage. No chicken, no egg no puzzle to resolve.

Most content is garbage, but there exists content you want. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't be looking for it, and you wouldn't see any ads. Ads are just the most friction-free way (from the reader's point of view) to pay for it. You don't have to install anything or connect your bank account. There's a lot wrong with that, including the proliferation of crappy content, but it does fund a lot of the genuine content…

I think if you have something worth saying, having an audience I a reward. True that there are different types of content, say “tutorials” that are valuable and wouldn't have been produced otherwise, but the monetization platform are themselves an incentive to produce stuff that really no one ever would’ve wanted to read or watch. Look at the profits of YouTube. Yes 1% is very valuable but most of it pure rubbish, that’s not only is dumbing societies down and inciting violence, it’s also a horrible waste of resources, human an natural.

I don’t know what’s the answer. Maybe a separate “commercial” internet, sort of shopping internet, where you you accepting the rules and the reward is your attention, time and resources for free content.

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#248

Post by monadic2 »

themacguffinman wrote: post #211
monadic2 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be more sympathetic to your worldview if the quality of the free services online weren't clearly lowered to service ad views. Just think how useful google could be if you could filter out commercial results, or import a domain blocklist, or control the ranking algorithm. Think how usable social media would be if it weren't a way to turn money into "engagement". Think how much better news sites would be if jou…

Think of how small and untransformative Google would be if only middle and upper class people afforded or bothered to pay for it because it charged a fee for its sophisticated services. Think how useless social media would be if it primarily connected together wealthy individuals that can pay the upkeep needed to operate a sophisticated global network while those who most need a voice cannot. Think of how much worse…

Sure, I’m all for nationalizing the service and making it free & more useful, I’m not arguing for making it paid.

Re: The Brave browser is brilliant, but probably not for the reasons you think

#249

Post by themacguffinman »

monadic2 wrote: post #248
themacguffinman wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of how small and untransformative Google would be if only middle and upper class people afforded or bothered to pay for it because it charged a fee for its sophisticated services. Think how useless social media would be if it primarily connected together wealthy individuals that can pay the upkeep needed to operate a sophisticated global network while those who most need a voice cannot. Think of how much worse…

Sure, I’m all for nationalizing the service and making it free & more useful, I’m not arguing for making it paid.

Nationalizing the service would destroy its usefulness. The public sector has its advantages but creativity, technological innovation, and good UX are not among them.
Post reply on HN