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

Chrome Is Bad

chromeisbad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 306 posts

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#271

Post by stjohnswarts »

ma2rten wrote: post #76

This must be how things like some alternative medicine and anti-vax start: Things like feeling healthy and your computer being slow can be very subjective. The author appears to be technical enough to know that there is something called keystone on his computer, but not technical enough to benchmark and investigate further. The name keystone sounds kind of nefarious, so it makes sense that someone would be able to co…

Well yeah, because "my kid has autism and his also got a vaccine so obviously that's the reason my kid got autism" is exactly how it gets started because they heard about that paper (or rumors thereof) that has been debunked a 1000 times over in the medical literature but now it's a part of folklore and almost impossible to kill like other superstitions.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#272

Post by stjohnswarts »

gumby wrote: post #90
awinter-py wrote: post #11

the linked 2009 wired article quotes adobe saying 'yeah we don't see the need to have an always-on updater process' fast forward to 2020 when (1) adobe has this and (2) they still email me every so often to remind me to install their software which (3) I have installed and been using I think life would be better if there were a 3rd-party update service that wasn't trying to also own marketing + distribution (i.e. tak…

Most of the GUI apps I use on macos update themselves using a framework like sparkle. Just uses an occasional (typically weekly) connection to check if an update is available and doesn’t need its own daemon.

This is the way. Windows is rife with these updater things. It's one of the first things I disable when I'm debugging a friend's Windows computer. I much prefer Mac and Linux because they (mostly) don't do such things, although I still have to keep a windows machine around for various reasons.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#273

Post by dang »

silexia wrote: post #235
dang wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indignation attracts upvotes, then flags. When an indignant post is relatively empty or misleading, flags will eventually win, but it's like the immune system—it takes some time to marshall enoguh white blood cells. This is a nice case because moderators only saw it after the process was done.

Hundreds of people commented and how many tens of thousands read it first though? Reminds me of the moderation problem big tech companies face. Humans are prone to confirmation bias which means that when they read inaccurate information that confirms a bias it even further twist people's brains. For example, this article likely twisted thousands of people just a little further against Google even with though there wa…

That's a different and much harder problem. I don't think there's a way around it. Community mechanisms need time for people to evaluate what they're looking at.

It's also an old problem - the adage "A lie flies around the world while the truth is still getting its trousers on" traces back to Jonathan Swift:

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.

A perfect 18th century description of internet dynamics!

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#274

Post by pvg »

anentropic wrote: post #251
pvg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

force trackpad press on the link to see a preview Ad Guard for Safari does not require you to run the app to block ads. Just quit the app. The hover thing might be some pref but Safari shows urls on mouseover.

When I quit the app the Ad Guard shield icon went back to "paused" so I assumed it needed to be running to work

It's not the best UI but the mouseover of the icon tells you what's going on, albeit in tiny print at the bottom:

https://i.imgur.com/hnRrBVr.png

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#275

Post by dang »

_qulr wrote: post #248
dang wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a dude with too much money and self-importance Personal attacks are not ok on HN. Please don't post like that again, regardless of whom you're defending.

This is a serious, non-sarcastic response: honestly, sincerely, in my experience as a HN reader off and on for years, a commenter for 6 months, and occasional author of submitted articles (usually submitted by someone other than me) that have reached #1, violation of the HN guidelines is the norm on HN, and abiding by the guidelines is the exception. I myself have been personally attacked on here, or been interpreted…

There are several points here—happy to respond.

> violation of the HN guidelines is the norm on HN

It happens much more than we'd prefer, but to say "the norm" is a huge exaggeration. I understand how it can feel like the norm—it's common enough to run into frequently, and painful experiences leave a stronger imprint than pleasant ones [1]. But these false feelings of generality are dangerous because they lead to an attitude of why-bother. Current toxin levels, though bad enough to produce symptoms, at least aren't fatal. Why-bother would kill the community if it spread.

> selective, arbitrary enforcement of rules

HN moderation is inconsistent in one way but consistent in another—call them strong and weak consistency. Strong consistency would be "every post that breaks the guidelines gets moderated in the same way". That would require moderators to read all the posts, and there are far too many for that to be feasible. Weak consistency would be "when a post does get moderated, the mods do it consistently and even-handedly". That's at least possible, and what we're shooting for. We don't get everything right but we're open to hearing about and fixing our mistakes.

If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it [2]. (You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.)

> why was my reply flagged, but the comment I replied to, which you also cited as violating the guidelines, was not flagged?

Users flagged one more than the other. Your post violated the guidelines worse, so I don't think that was unfair.

> this whole submission seems to be a strange time to be pedantic about enforcing the guidelines

That's not how moderation works. When users break the guidelines and we see it, we ask them not to. Keep in mind that we don't necessarily read the threads in order—sometimes we do, but other times we're looking in via more random-access views. The guidelines don't change relative to the submission, so I don't see why moderation should.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#276

Post by wnevets »

coldtea wrote: post #268
wnevets wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or, you know, Apple gets the same or more kind of criticism, but since you are biased to agree with it, you are blind to it, and only see the praise/defenses. Do you honestly believe if this post was about apple or an apple product with the exact same lack of content, it would have gotten the same number of up votes as quickly as this one did?

In HN, where every third post is "Why I'm leaving Apple" or such? Yes.

I dont see any apple related post on the front page, let alone negative ones. Do you see a different front page than I do?

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#277

Post by aflag »

sneak wrote: post #220
f1refly wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> chrome's security is, however, light years ahead of anyone else's give evidence to support your claim. I've been using Firefox for the past 10 years and I fail to see how it's insecure. I do see however, how it's not nearly as user-hostile as chrome.

I don't need to have a working exploit for Firefox to accurately state that it's easier to exploit Firefox than it is Chrome. I encourage you to read writeups on the patched bugs for Chrome sometime.

All the metrics you've given are either subjective or inconclusive. I think the claim that firefox is less secure than chrome needs to be backed by a metric such as the number of critical issues and how long they took to be patched. Otherwise it sounds as mere speculation.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#278

Post by saagarjha »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #249
saagarjha wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because since macOS Catalina Activity Monitor did something to itself to make itself spend half a core just updating its table view and literally nobody who works on it (which I suspect is <1 person) understands that a monitoring tool that uses more CPU than the thing it is meant to monitor is absurd. I have seriously considered rewriting it multiple times and if the app stays like it is one day I probably wi…

Any reason you don’t use a terminal tool like htop?

I do use htop occasionally; however, I am not really a fan of keeping around a terminal for something that could be a well-integrated native app. Plus htop is missing a lot of information Activity Monitor has, as well as the ability to do things like run sample or spindump.

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#279

Post by crazygringo »

dang wrote: post #273
silexia wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hundreds of people commented and how many tens of thousands read it first though? Reminds me of the moderation problem big tech companies face. Humans are prone to confirmation bias which means that when they read inaccurate information that confirms a bias it even further twist people's brains. For example, this article likely twisted thousands of people just a little further against Google even with though there wa…

That's a different and much harder problem. I don't think there's a way around it. Community mechanisms need time for people to evaluate what they're looking at. It's also an old problem - the adage "A lie flies around the world while the truth is still getting its trousers on" traces back to Jonathan Swift: Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late;…

Dang, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed you applying that old quote to the modern day. The more things change...

Re: Chrome Is Bad

#280

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #279
dang wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a different and much harder problem. I don't think there's a way around it. Community mechanisms need time for people to evaluate what they're looking at. It's also an old problem - the adage "A lie flies around the world while the truth is still getting its trousers on" traces back to Jonathan Swift: Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late;…

Dang, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed you applying that old quote to the modern day. The more things change...

[deleted]
Post reply on HN