161–170 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a developer, Chrome's tools are pretty good. As a user, the sync options for history and bookmarks are what keep me in. It's definitely not perfect but it's fine for now. I like Firefox but not enough to switch I was first a Firefox user, switched to Chrome, back to FF and finally to Chrome once I got a smart phone and they added sync
For web development, it's kinda mandatory as nobody wants a site that doesn't work in the most popular browser. That doesn't mean you have to use it for browsing as well though- I found that having Chrome for testing / debugging and Firefox for browsing was quite a productive setup last time I did web dev.
Chrome's just works, every time.
Oddly, it sorta worked for me in FF the other day, but it took me to the minified source, which wasn't terribly helpful in an app that I'm writing.
I still use Firefox 99% of the time, but it really pains me that that one feature is so broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likewise. Step up YC people!
As has been said by someone before: There's a billion dollar niche waiting for the right company: - make a search engine that works - show text ads clearly distinguishable from results - play nice, and maybe even use use a cool slogan like "we're not evil" or something (it used to be someone else's but it seems they don't use it anymore ;-)
- Our search engine works and has been doing so for >15 years. Our search quality needs improving but does so gradually. And it's independent; our own crawler, index and infrastructure
- We just introduced non-tracking search ads: https://www.mojeek.com/support/ads/
- We use "No Tracking , Just Search" and "Search without Surveillance"
We've been building for 15 years; here's our founder story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26502140
What I don't get is why Google is allowed to provide a browser and be a major content provider at the same time. If this is allowed to continue then it seems inevitable than an unhealthy monopoly will form where Chrome and its derivatives are the only browsers that can consume the modern web, and where opting out of tracking is not a possibility for anyone but the most technically inclined (although that's almost alr…
DNS over HTTPS is another example of Chrome trying to workaround means of blocking tracking.
What I don't get is why Google is allowed to provide a browser and be a major content provider at the same time. If this is allowed to continue then it seems inevitable than an unhealthy monopoly will form where Chrome and its derivatives are the only browsers that can consume the modern web, and where opting out of tracking is not a possibility for anyone but the most technically inclined (although that's almost alr…
What I don’t get is how many howl and cry foul at Apple for its Store “monopoly” while anyone can opt-out of it by switching to any other of the myriad competitors. While in this case, Google is very likely abusing its dominance to coerce the whole ecosystem beyond their own platform in their favor: if the web becomes “works with Chrome” everyone is (probably negatively) affected.
Epic says this is not a real factor for consumers, despite it still harming them.
anyone using this site that still uses chrome, why?
general.smoothScroll: false
mousewheel.default.delta_multiplier_y: 300Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have this workflow: - use DDG - if I can't find it, attach !g to my query and be instantly on Google - either confirm Google can't find it either - or found it this way DDG get important data to improve their technology, I avoid being tracked most of the time and I get the same results for the cost of a few seconds here and there. Yes, DDG isn't exactly amazing for anyone who used Google before 2009, but neither is…
You can use !s instead of !g and you get the google results through startpage without going to google directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's Encrypt has de facto monopoly. I think we could have added HTTPS if we had dozens of projects like Let's Encrypt otherwise this is just handing over too much control to one organisation.
> Let's Encrypt has de facto monopoly. Is that even remotely true? There are alternatives to Lets Encrypt - AWS has an equivalent project where they issue free SSL certs for AWS resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla has been playing a little bit better here, but let's not forget Mozilla could remove the addon on pretty much in the same way. Case in point: Firefox on mobile has a selected _whitelist_ of addons you can install, and that's it.
I was under the impression that the new Firefox for Android has not implemented all plugin APIs yet, and thus can't run most of the plugins. Of course there will be plugins that do work and are not whitelisted right now, and they need to get on that, but it's not just whitelisting for the sake of whitelisting