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

341–350 of 733 posts

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

#341

Post by dm319 »

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 -…

I think there is an insidiousness to our language that can help to stabilise social discrimination, and most of us (white/black, male/female) are unaware of it.

Dark mode doesn't have negative connotations. A 'blacklist' is negative selection, as opposed to a 'whitelist' which is positive selection. I didn't even realise this until I came across, and, on reflection, I agree that this is a simple change in the right direction.

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

#342

Post by humanrebar »

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…

It's worth noting that "blacklist" is awful because it's origins are in British history, having to do political assassination and conspiracy. Amongst a bunch of very Caucasian parties.

The "black" is not racial but metaphorical, as in "the absence if light". The connection to dark-skinned folks is accidental through the science of optics. Light being good and darkness being bad is part of most (all?) monotheistic culture. To excise them all would include considering much art, culture, and even holy texts insensitive. It's overkill, especially when there are more pressing reforms to pursue.

There's a nice confluence where basically all parties win by eliminating "blacklist" from benign contexts, but the original violence is not racial at all. Religious and political, sure.

In case I am not clear, if we want to be on the side of education, accurate history, and truth, we should not assume racist history and intention everywhere. In this case, it's an entirely different form of tyrrany, violence, and bigotry, but we should be careful about appearing overzealous and under-informed.

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

#343

Post by sorenjan »

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.

Remember when ReadWriteWeb wrote an article about a new Facebook login feature and users who usually Googled facebook login and pressed the first result got all confused and angry? I don't think the average user today is any more knowledgeable about URLs.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/feb/11/face...

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

#344

Post by jmull »

Software should be designed for the user experience.

Including features that help support, diagnose, log, test, debug, and develop are part of that, especially for software that provides a platform. For platforms, developers are one kind of user.

However, developer features should be out-of-the-way by default. Anything beyond the domain is not meaningful to end-users and should be hidden by default in the same way other developer tools are.

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

#345

Post by gsich »

scandox wrote: post #200
gsich wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree. What I'm saying is clearly if you want to defeat this then a totally different approach needs to turn up because 20 years of mainstream internet use has resulted in zero user education.

I doubt that. You mention in your parent post that people don't know the difference between a browser and a specific site. I think most people do. At least if they use more then 1 site.

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

#346

Post by sk0g »

magicalist wrote: post #294
sk0g wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the cool kids call it, as it sorta falls under the inclusion initiatives. EDIT: I was clearly disagreeing with the parent badmouthing SJWs wrt accessibility...

> there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the coop kids call it "Pushing for accessibility" is a pejorative now? What in the world is going on in this thread?

I never said it was? I said if anything the SJWs they are blaming would be on their side, so it's a weird dig to make.

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

#347

Post by Kye »

humanrebar wrote: post #331
Applejinx wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

That's the nefarious thing about the shift from outright slurs to more approachable concepts. The less obvious it is you're talking about a marginalized group, the more people you can rope in who don't realize it's a dog whistle. Soon it's hard to tell who's who from outside the growing and ever-angrier mob.

One day it's "jews" or "queers," the next it's "SJWs" and people who are just a little frustrated with modern discourse say "yeah!" and don't realize they're holding hands with an eager eugenicist. Pretty soon they've lost all their friends and have no idea how they got there, but now they don't seem to have anywhere else to go...

It's insidious. And now I have to wonder: would the person yelling about "SJWs" cheer as I'm marched into the gas chambers, or are they just frustrated about people who go overboard on Twitter? Probably the latter, but I can't really be sure. They don't even realize where they've positioned themselves.

edit:

>> "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."

The diplomat and the journalist would know where they're positioned and be able to use that for their job. People who latch on to dogwhistles for unrelated frustrations typically do not and end up being used.

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

#348

Post by sk0g »

Spivak wrote: post #308
magicalist wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the coop kids call it "Pushing for accessibility" is a pejorative now? What in the world is going on in this thread?

No, you’re just assuming it is because it’s next to the word SWJ. The parent's point is that someone who would self-identify or otherwise be described as SWJ would more likely push for greater accessibility to a fault rather than reduce it for aesthetic reasons. The attack on “SJWs” in the grandparent is misguided because it misunderstands their motivations so completely that it’s clear that the term is just meant as…

Thanks, at least someone got me! I was trying to call out randomly blaming people who, if anything, would be on their side, but it seems like most people misunderstood me.

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

#349

Post by sleavey »

andai wrote: post #255
fastball wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox isn't free either. It's just paid for by Google.

The other day I heard Firefox described as Google's antitrust lawsuit insurance...

Hah, that actually makes me happy as a no-break Firefox user since 2003. At least that means Google will continue to support Firefox independently for as long as they're in the browser business.

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

#350

Post by zzzcpan »

amluto wrote: post #338
krzyk wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Black is also not a color, but the light not being reflected or emitted or let through. Hence the blacklist, it doesn't need to have judgement or historically loaded meaning.
Post reply on HN