111–120 of 251 posts
But all my Firefox problems happen on Google owned sites. Maps navigation doesn't highlight the route (desktop). Google image search doesn't work (desktop).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's something I value, I keep my own copy.
Do you get much value out of a youtube video the second time around? If I need to figure out which screws to remove or something like that, it's probably the first and last time I'll need that particular information. If you're not also ensuring that others can access that copy then I don't really see the point.
Took a performance benchmark in both Firefox and Brave. Both of them are unusually slow (addons/extensions disabled, fresh profile), but Firefox especially so. Source for the huge render times seems to be desktop_polymer.js, specifically the part that's registering and setting up custom web components. Once the website loads, performance becomes a lot better. My guess is that a Polymer update made Youtube slower for…
Since YouTube has massive resources and famed tooling&processes, presumably either they knew about the Firefox problems before deploying, or (if there was a genuine QA mistake) they'd know about it very soon after deploy, when they'd be able to rollback if they wanted to. (Obviously, they know about Firefox, they've developed for it since it was available, and they've even been funding it.)
If the EU was serious about privacy they'd fully fund Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that force them not to give Chrome preferential treatment? Even if Chrome becomes independent, it will still likely be the most used browser. Google could just do what other companies already do, and never test on Firefox anyway.
It would remove any incentive to intentionally worsen the non-Chrome(ium) experience. Relevant if you suspect they are deliberately sabotaging Firefox. (That would be a foolish move to make while they are in the middle of multiple antitrust cases and already lost one, but companies aren't immune to acting like idiots)
Can confirm. Google is a new Microsoft, they leverage their position to cross promote their shit browser and their shit data stealing services. Sorry guys, if your data collection website doesn't work well with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I just won't use it.
going by Hanlon's Razor, i would guess that this is merely the result of an engineering update that nobody bothered to QA on Firefox rather than a malicious attack on a single browser that isn't _really_ winning market share let's not assume Google malice is _too_ competent
Yeah, I'm baffled that people on HN will happily accept pretty damning conspiracy theories at face value when there are much more plausible explanations available. My app is also having performance issues with WebGL on Firefox so I guess I'm part of the conspiracy?
Took a performance benchmark in both Firefox and Brave. Both of them are unusually slow (addons/extensions disabled, fresh profile), but Firefox especially so. Source for the huge render times seems to be desktop_polymer.js, specifically the part that's registering and setting up custom web components. Once the website loads, performance becomes a lot better. My guess is that a Polymer update made Youtube slower for…
Since YouTube has massive resources and famed tooling&processes, presumably either they knew about the Firefox problems before deploying, or (if there was a genuine QA mistake) they'd know about it very soon after deploy, when they'd be able to rollback if they wanted to. (Obviously, they know about Firefox, they've developed for it since it was available, and they've even been funding it.)
Wish that were true. The world would be a much less buggy place.
Can confirm. Google is a new Microsoft, they leverage their position to cross promote their shit browser and their shit data stealing services. Sorry guys, if your data collection website doesn't work well with Firefox and uBlock Origin, I just won't use it.
Thank heavens there is https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp
Took a performance benchmark in both Firefox and Brave. Both of them are unusually slow (addons/extensions disabled, fresh profile), but Firefox especially so. Source for the huge render times seems to be desktop_polymer.js, specifically the part that's registering and setting up custom web components. Once the website loads, performance becomes a lot better. My guess is that a Polymer update made Youtube slower for…
I have a strong feeling the developers behind sites like YouTube and Reddit don't actually use the software they make, because both are slow and laggy to use on any computer I use. I just can't think of any other reason why they're both so infamously bad.
If the site works for the 95% of ad dollars who use Chrome on their phones, it works as intended.