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

331–340 of 733 posts

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

#331

Post by humanrebar »

Applejinx wrote: post #322
ben_w wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm also puzzled by the SJW non-sequitur.

That being said, let's not get into literal guilt-by-association accusations. If someone carries water for proto-fascists or otherwise has a negative worldview, just say that.

Being "adjacent" is often a good thing. A diplomat to a totalitarian country is voluntarily "tyrant adjacent" to pick an arbitrary example. Legitimate journalists (as opposed to propagandists) on the alt-right reporting beat would be likewise.

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

#332

Post by sorenjan »

I actually wouldn't mind if the URL bar was replaced with a breadcrumb bar on some sites, like news and forums. Imagine something like

Example.com > Worldnews > 2020 > 06 > 14 > Big aquatic monster spotted outside of Tokyo

or

forum.example.com > Sport > Football > Spain > Real Madrid

It could then work like in Explorer in Windows 10, where you can press one of the breadcrumb separators and see a menu with siblings, or go straight to all news this month. It could use some manifest file in a standard format on the server for the directory information.

Of course, this should never replace the URL completely, you should always be able to get to it easily. But URLs aren't necessarily always the best solution for navigation. We tokenize code and apply different colors, mouse over pop-ups, and links, why should the URL bar be a long raw text string when it's really contains structured data?

This Google nonses of hiding everything except the domain is not a good solution IMO, it doesn't solve a problem and makes it harder to navigate, not easier.

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

#333

Post by cannedslime »

YarickR2 wrote: post #129
cannedslime wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox donating to what is literally a encrypted message service for open societies foundation agitprop groups is what made me purge firefox from all my systems. I'd rather be tracked up the A by google for commercial purposes than supporting anti-democratic agitprop bullshit.

Could you please clarify what are you talking about ?

Mozilla donated to riseup.net some years ago, after they shunned Brendan Eich from his own creation. Riseup.net is a encrypted mail service for OSF agitprop groups.

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

#334

Post by cannedslime »

tuukkah wrote: post #126
cannedslime wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox donating to what is literally a encrypted message service for open societies foundation agitprop groups is what made me purge firefox from all my systems. I'd rather be tracked up the A by google for commercial purposes than supporting anti-democratic agitprop bullshit.

You do realise that you don't get to choose between getting tracked by Google or "supporting" the goals of Mozilla Foundation (such as freedom of speech for all including your political enemies)? That is, by choosing Chrome you also "support" any and all political goals of Google (such as replacing the open web with AMP).

Sadly, yes I realize that.

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

#335

Post by likeclockwork »

psexec wrote: post #157
ben_w wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

The white:black :: good:evil dichotomy has been open to criticism since one group of people labeled themselves white and another group of people black. That was when the colors became politicized.

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

#336

Post by looper_dude »

amingilani wrote: post #38
Gehinnn wrote: post #4

This might be harmful to github pages where it would hide the repository name. If they include this without offering an option to turn it off, I will quit using Chrome.

I switched to Firefox the moment they hid the `www` prefix.

It's not actually a prefix. It's a subdomain, and there is no requirement for actually having it. It's just a convention that a lot of sites follow.

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

#337

Post by tchaffee »

krzyk wrote: post #306
tchaffee wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would anyone be offended by blacklist? Would they be also offended by the color black? Or maybe dark mode, that is getting popular? Or maybe offended by the fact that most pages on the web have light/white theme? This is getting ridiculous (together with github ditching the name "master" - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312 ), maybe it is the result of too much working from home recently -…

> Why would anyone be offended by blacklist?

Because of its etymology and history [1] for starters:

    n.

    also black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. As a verb, from 1718. Related: Blacklisted; blacklisting. [32]
"It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas."

> Or maybe dark mode

Dark mode is not used in a negative way like "blacklist" or "blackballed". And it accurately describes exactly what happens. Unlike "blacklist" which is an inaccurate idiom that relies on "black" being used to mean "bad". So no, I doubt "dark mode" would offend anyone.

> Why would anyone be offended

You could start by learning about microagressions [2]. This one covers "blacklist" specifically. And was presented by a black man if that helps you with credibility.

> This is getting ridiculous

I agree that systemic racism has gone on for far too long. Even conservative four star US generals are starting to say we need big changes in society.

> What is even more funny is the fact that those changes are proposed by white guys without any complains from the black folks.

You are wrong. Just as one small counter-example the presentation I already cited that discusses "blacklist" was made by a black man. Anecdotal, but my black friends have sent me many resources recently about how to become a better anti-racist. Our diversity initiative at my current client is being lead by a black employee. This is coming from oppressed black people who have been very visibly protesting injustice for over two weeks now for the most recent injustice. And for decades actually for anyone who has been listening.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

[2] https://www.appic.org/Portals/0/2018%20Conference/APPIC%2020...

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

#338

Post by amluto »

krzyk wrote: post #306
tchaffee wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would anyone be offended by blacklist? Would they be also offended by the color black? Or maybe dark mode, that is getting popular? Or maybe offended by the fact that most pages on the web have light/white theme? This is getting ridiculous (together with github ditching the name "master" - https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1271253144442253312 ), maybe it is the result of too much working from home recently -…

There is a qualitative difference between your examples and “blacklist”. Dark mode is about color. The color black is a color. Light mode is a color’s brightness. A widely used white background is a color. I don’t think any reasonable person objects to using terms about color to refer to colors. Black objects are black, red objects are red, etc.

But “blacklist” is entirely different. “Blacklist” uses a color term to describe the acceptability of something. It relates a value judgment to a color. I don’t know the history of the term, but I can easily see how it could be at least somewhat offensive.

None of this is to say that the term “blacklist” is problematic or should be discouraged, but your argument about it doesn’t hold water.

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

#339

Post by brnt »

gsich wrote: post #186
scandox wrote: post #149

I'm against this. But: it's 2020 and still a huge number of people I deal with every day type the name of our product into their search bar and then login at the first site returned. Most don't know the difference between a browser and a specific website. It's all just a big Smush to them apparently.

It's $current_year is never a good excuse. $people not knowing stuff should not mean that everyone should get dumber to match $people.

It feels like a long time ago people were talking of computing in context of educating and empowering users rather than accessing commercial services.

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

#340

Post by neurostimulant »

NateEag wrote: post #321
neurostimulant wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Multiple A records is fine on root domain, but root can't use CNAME, which is used by some people to implement their dns load balancing (I use cname so I forgot that you can still do it using A records). By using root domain instead of www, your options for load balancing is diminished.

Edit: another common use case is hosting your static website on S3 or github pages. Typically it's done by adding a cname entry to s3 or github.io (been a while so hopefully I remember it right). You can't do this on root, unless you're using another server as reverse proxy (e.g. cloudflare's cname flattening service). Again, it's benefits cloud vendors (cloudflare got more potential customers by offering this service for free) but ultimately hurt people that want to host their small websites.

Post reply on HN