201–210 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe just dip your toe in? It's okay to use Chrome for X and FF for Y. i.e. Use it exclusively for HN (say for a few weeks) and see how it goes.
Not going to help when my session is 200+ tabs. Previously it's dead after moving my main session.
So for this HN article. You can't use FF to try it out. You HAVE to add it to the 200+ tabs to Chrome?
Brave has ad blocking built in - you don't need extensions.
Brave is just crypto adware, they even went so far as to automatically append crypto exchange referral codes to urls [0] Funded by Palantir Technologies by the way [1] Their ad rewards system analyses and modifies the original webcontent, replacing existing ads with their own (and who knows what other code they inject) [2] Then there's their hidden tracker URL whitelist [3] No thanks. [0] https://twitter.com/cryptona…
As someone who is intimately familiar with the Chrome extensions internals and is not employed by a big tech company, I believe most of the changes seem like a step in the right direction.* I've been working towards implementing greater support for Chrome extensions in Electron which has involved reading and interacting with Chromium code [0]. - Using service workers instead of a hidden background webpage is more idi…
Are these changes actually needed, though? As much as it makes sense to use service workers, for instance, this seems like a rationalization to shoehorn in Google's anti-features. It's not like background webpages are broken or even hard to use. It's not like everyone's clamoring for their ad blockers to use less resource or for Chrome to be faster. There was a time when I switched to Chrome because I believed it to…
> It's not like everyone's clamoring for their ad blockers to use less resource or for Chrome to be faster.
some people do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28672377 - "Brave reduces the page load performance cost of its adblocker"
original article having some impressive improvement numbers.
It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.
The only browser that's been losing users for years is Firefox. That already tells Google all they need to know. (It also tells Mozilla what they need to know; pity they are deaf.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember some people saying Safari's extension changes and specific content blocker API would be a good thing because ad blockers would use less resources. The change happened, uBlock Origin broke for Safari and here we are several years later and the Safari ad blocker ecosystem is an absolute joke and most of it barely works or demands subscription fees (and the ones that do are certainly not worth paying for beca…
> and the ones that do are certainly not worth paying for because they don't even block YT ads AdGuard can[1] but it’s a cumbersome process. 1Blocker had to develop a bespoke solution but it works seamlessly[2]. [1]: https://adguard.com/en/article/how-to-block-ads-on-youtube.h... [2]: https://backstage.1blocker.com/how-to-block-youtube-ads-in-s...
It just uses the old APIs for blocking video.
The bulk of the blocking work, however, is still done by the recommended blocking API.
So far Apple seems happy with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone should use the last bastion of free Web: Firefox. (which is actually pretty great, and I have a way better browsing experience with it that with that chrome monstrosity)
Haven't used Firefox in years, would need to check what's new. But I've been enjoying Brave. Built in blockers for ads and trackers, built in tor, and a very interesting rewards system to help content creators and honestly, so far I recommend it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not going to help when my session is 200+ tabs. Previously it's dead after moving my main session.
You really have 200+ HN tabs open? I don't understand how that's manageable at all. So for this HN article. You can't use FF to try it out. You HAVE to add it to the 200+ tabs to Chrome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because v2 extensions haven't been switched off yet. It might be different in January 2023; or maybe the limited adblocking of v3 will be enough for most people. Time will tell.
Ad providers are obfuscating domains to bypass blocks. Currently only ublock origin deobfuscate and block based on the original domain.(It is supported on firefox only anyway) But after the change... I guess no one on chrome can do. And ad blocking will be totally useless at that point. See also: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dashboard:-Settings#u...