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

Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 733 posts

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#321

Post by NateEag »

neurostimulant wrote: post #259
chiefsucker wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common convention with system administrators is to have the canonical name at www.* and redirect www-less requests to the former. If you argue that a browser implementation should fix uncommon configurations, I would argue that administrators should fix their configurations in the first place. You don’t have this issue at all for domains that don’t have a www subdomain. Furthermore it would be extremely confusing t…

Yeah, I don't like the current trend to redirect www to root. You can easily doing simple dns-based load balancing by having multiple ip addresses on the www subdomain. You can't do that on root domain, you'll have to use a dedicated load balancer even if all you want is just simple load balancing among a small set of servers. It only benefit cloud vendors and hurt hobbyist/small website operators if this trend conti…

I also dislike the trend to redirect the 'www' prefix to root.

My company uses DNS load balancing for a root domain, though, so either I'm misunderstanding you or you're mistaken about what's possible here.

We use Constellix's DNS management to have round-robin DNS via multiple A records for 'nxtbook.com'.

If you're thinking of some other form of DNS load balancing, would you please clarify?

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#322

Post by Applejinx »

ben_w wrote: post #102
cletus wrote: post #94

Another phrase I live by: "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." There will be some VP of Product or Engineering buried deep in the bureaucracy who is pushing this, deciding with no evidence (or, worse, lots of evidence to the contrary; believe me this happens) that it is the "users who are wrong" [1]. It now takes something like 4 taps to get to the point where I can correct or otherwise edit the URL in m…

Insightful, but I am confused by the final paragraph: > I'm tired of this anti-Web and anti-accessibility SJW nonsense “SJW” must have a meaning I’m not familiar with, because Social Justice Warriors would be pro-accessibility, not anti.

Yes, it's a fairly reliable tip-off that the person saying it is alt-right or alt-right adjacent. Depending on how vehement the person is, it can indicate almost any degree of fascist ideology, so while the term is usually an indicator, if it leads to a super-intense rant, it's just communicated volumes about the person's ideology, even if they normally try to 'hide their power level'.

Normal people don't get worked up over that stuff, tending to assume justice movements aren't a direct threat to them. Alt-righters are kind of defined by passionate opposition to such things.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#324

Post by kjakm »

CyanBird wrote: post #202
toyg wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s too close for comfort to the Windows/Linux comparison. This said, I honestly don’t understand what people mean when they say the experience is “superior” in Chrome. It’s a web browser. It browses. You get passwords saved and synchronised. Everything else is an extension. What’s so bad about FF...?

I would love to get comments from Chrome users I just could not live without firefox and being unable to share tabs/links from anywhere in my phone to my desktop and or laptop

As a Safari user it boggles my mind that Firefox's send to device feature is considered good at all. All my Safari tabs are automatically synced to my phone at all times with no intervention needed from me. It's one of the few things keeping me from switching to Firefox actually.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#325

Post by nkrisc »

tchaffee wrote: post #289
psexec wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about this idiocy? https://9to5google.com/2020/06/12/google-android-chrome-blac...

Changing from blacklist and whitelist to blocklist and allowlist is one of the many small things we can do that makes our black colleagues feel seen, heard, and welcome in our workplaces. I support it. No one thinks changing language is enough to eliminate the systemic racism oppressing black people in the US. Eliminating that will require work and personal change. If you can't even stop using black to mean negative…

There are lots of real problems out there, but this is an imaginary one.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#327

Post by mantap »

wolco wrote: post #291
butz wrote: post #62

While this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it…

Developers at least the experienced ones never left firefox. For the new developers who got hooked on chrome over the last 10/15 years time to move to a developer friendly browser. At this point ie becomes more useful.

Blink is the most common browser engine. Firefox has some nice developer tools but if you don't test in blink throughout the day then you're just asking for problems.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#328

Post by Vinnl »

arexxbifs wrote: post #191
Vinnl wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's implying there's an "after they learn" - even without those hoops.

Knowledge does not guarantee action, but there will be no action without knowledge.

It's not unimaginable to me that there will be no knowledge anyway, regardless of whether the URL is shown or not.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#329

Post by cageface »

randomsearch wrote: post #77
Angostura wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's weird that people like a particular browswer for a number of its feature, but are upset about a change that makes it worse?

Chrome is the new IE. Some sites don’t work (well) with others browsers, so people are annoyed when the browser they are forced to use does stupid things.

This analogy would work if Google was deliberately holding back new features on the web to favor its proprietary operating system but in fact the situation is pretty much the opposite.

I also don't understand why everyone is up with pitchforks at Google on this when Apple did the same thing to URLs a while ago. I guess engineers are just as susceptible to groupthink as anyone else.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#330

Post by zzzcpan »

foldr wrote: post #261
cletus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"SJW" is a pejorative at this point because the key part isn't about the ideas being expressed but the motivations behind advocating those views. It implies that despite outward appearances it's all rather self-serving, a form of getting validation and superficial virtue signaling. So when you see major rewrites, major redesigns and controversial changes in popular products you'll often find an agenda behind it. Some…

This has nothing to do with so-called SJWs. Please think twice before using politically toxic language in a thread that isn't even about politics. I guess it pleases you to tell a story about how this trivial UI design decision is actually the result of the machinations of your political enemies. But there is absolutely zero evidence for that. Do you really find it so hard to imagine that the decision was made with g…

Good intentions never had a role in decision making in hierarchical organizations, there is no known history of that. Plenty of the opposite, with subordinates only caring what their bosses think, giving up on moral principles they had, etc. Imagining good intentions is just bullshit, basically a way to avoid dissent, to trick or force obedience. Which seems to be exactly what are you trying to do here. Even if the post is wrong in details and uses terminology not the way you'd like, it's still way more right than this "good intentions" idea.
Post reply on HN