111–120 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After stealing the newspaper?
Browsing the web is equivalent of your butler shouting to another butler to please GET /some/page, and the other butler then kindly replying with a document. Theft requires the action to not be voluntary, but a web server replying with a page is free to reject my request. It is entirely moral.
My mp3 player will play that song you downloaded as well.
It's like your butler downloading a torrent with a song played to you.
I won't argue pirating is not moral. But it has the same morality as blocking ads.
Not scope of this analysis, but my #1 regression is large PDF in tabs. It such a standard part of the web experience, especially in sharing academic research, that it feels like a legit pain point in dire need of an upgrade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can afford it, I'd suggest switching to AdNauseam ( https://adnauseam.io ). They're using the same uBlock Origin engine, but ads are downloaded and clicked on in the background. This way you still generate revenue for site owners. But since this extension is banned from the Chrome Web Store, you'll have to install it manually there. On Firefox it's available from their add-on store.
This is based on a misunderstanding of how ads work and does harm. If this silently clicks ads in the background the click rate goes up but the goal action (buying, signing up) remains at 0 which smartprices the ads and tanks the value of the ads for the real clickthroughs. If you must block ads just use uBlock Origin so you are treated like your visit doesn't exist. A deeper question is it moral to consume content a…
Tangential question: are there other giveaways than download time for a cached document which could be used by malicious scripts? I ask because I don't understand why a zero download time for a cached document couldn't be simply masked by some (random) wait by the browser instead of downloading the file again. From the chrome update page linked in the article, the explanation is: > However, the time a website takes t…
Browsers are mitigating what you described with cache partitioning. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2020/10/http-cache...
Tangential question: are there other giveaways than download time for a cached document which could be used by malicious scripts? I ask because I don't understand why a zero download time for a cached document couldn't be simply masked by some (random) wait by the browser instead of downloading the file again. From the chrome update page linked in the article, the explanation is: > However, the time a website takes t…
Browsers are mitigating what you described with cache partitioning. https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2020/10/http-cache...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the problem isn't page weight or JS frameworks, it's network latency[3]. if that was the case electron apps with content available locally would not be so slow
I'm comparing website vs website when I'm talking about web performance. You're comparing Electron apps vs... native apps?
web implies "everything built with web technologies", whether it runs locally or not
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can afford it, I'd suggest switching to AdNauseam ( https://adnauseam.io ). They're using the same uBlock Origin engine, but ads are downloaded and clicked on in the background. This way you still generate revenue for site owners. But since this extension is banned from the Chrome Web Store, you'll have to install it manually there. On Firefox it's available from their add-on store.
This is based on a misunderstanding of how ads work and does harm. If this silently clicks ads in the background the click rate goes up but the goal action (buying, signing up) remains at 0 which smartprices the ads and tanks the value of the ads for the real clickthroughs. If you must block ads just use uBlock Origin so you are treated like your visit doesn't exist. A deeper question is it moral to consume content a…
That would create a subset of "no attention stealing" web.
But actually ads placed in separate elements are convenient in a way . It would be much much worse if the ad industry switched to a sponsored content to invade that area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uBlock is what's keeping me from switching to Safari (which is so much nicer to use on a Mac) It seems like most people who use Safari use full system-level ad blockers like Wipr. But I was also Googling around and found some complaints about Wipr, like it taking forever to be updated to block YouTube ads when they switch how they're displayed, or not being as good at getting around ad-block detection on certain site…
You can install uBlock in Safari from the AppStore. Works great for me.