121–130 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't applied Hanlon's Razor properly. They're just coordinating incompetence that they find beneficial, not being malicious.
Sufficiently weaponized incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
So.. Chrome is too big to fork. Then why don't we make a bare-bones OSS no-DRM browser with only a subset of JS and CSS and promote at the same time an old-school webring of 'virtous' websites. If it catches on (and it could since it'd be free and fast ), maybe some big sites would evolve to advertise themselves as 'virtous'.
I think it wants to implement all of JS eventually though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
V3 will improve performance of ads division.
Where is EU when you need them with their anti-trust litigation. Google is pulling a 2000s Microsoft.
the Microsoft antitrust trial original verdict was reached in 1999 by the way (appeals kept it alive a bit longer, though, into 2001). you are probably referring to the 1990s Microsoft, I imagine.
dotproto from the Chrome team commented on May 27 [2]:
> @mon-jai, the short answer is no, I don't have any updates to share. That said, I'll reaffirm that we plan to support userscript managers in Maniest V3 before the Manifest V2 deprecation.
But the deprecation is approaching and the Chrome team hasn't released any more information about this AFAIK. These extensions are going to require large refactors to support MV3 and they can't meaningfully start until the Chrome team elucidates how script injection will work. With MV2 deprecation coming so soon, I worry there won't be enough time.
[0]: Manifest V3: examine the effects · Issue #644 · Tampermonkey/tampermonkey: https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644
[1]: Migrate to Manifest V3 · Issue #1821 · brookhong/Surfingkeys - https://github.com/brookhong/Surfingkeys/issues/1821
[2]: https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you block third party javascript files (e.g. google analytics) other code required for the website to function correctly might fail, since it relies on that third party javascript. So uBlock doesn't block certain javascript files, and instead replaces them by its own version which contains dummy functions that avoid those errors.
OK that doesn't have to do with blocking Google AdSense ads nor does it have to do with proxying so I'm kind of confused.
When a website wants to load an ad, it uses javascript[0]. The website can call a function in the included javascript file and tell AdSense "hey load an ad". If you simply block the JS file the website can break due to trying to call functions that don't exist.
uBlock (supposedly, I haven't verified this) instead of blocking the JS instead replaces it with it's own version. That version just basically says "yeah sure cool" whenever the website tries to display an ad, but doesn't actually do anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like no one was making warnings about this.
And every time there's a bunch of replies about how great Brave is, and everyone should just use that... Chromium wrapper.
I'm going to repost a previous comment here.
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32741481
> I used to refuse Chromium for the Same reason.
> But honestly it already happened, Firefox is already irrelevant.
> Mozilla is mis-managed organization that is funded to avoid anti-trust investigations, they dont fully push for privacy because they are afraid of google, do out of touch changes, and focus on political advocacy.
> Compare that to brave, which builds its own independent search engine, ad network, and has privacy by default in its products.
>There is no hope that Mozilla and Firefox will change the status-quo anytime soon, Firefox is losing users at crazy rate, and Mozilla is absolutely failing to do anything to change Firefox's destiny towards irrelevance.
> Brave is almost everything Mozilla should've been.
> Actually do what they sey, no hidden google analytics in their products, no unique ID for each installer downloaded, push for privacy by default and independence from big tech, not being shy from google, because they are their only income.
> I would argue, that if Mozilla wants to turn its course around with their "limited resources" it should drop gecko, and anything irrelevant to the users experience.
> Fork Chromium, the best web engine out there by a mile, and remove any anti-privacy / anticompetitive code, while still taking advantage of the huge development resources directed to chromium from many parties, and maybe Mozilla can also influence Chromium's development.
> Start pushing privacy by default, its the reason brave is gaining users at such a rapid pace, its a browser I recommend to everyone, as just by installing it they already are much more private than with chrome.
> What matters is the users experience, its why brave is growing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534893414579249152 > Brave will support uBO and uMatrix so long as Google doesn’t remove underlying V2 code paths (which seem to be needed for Chrome for enterprise support, so should stay in the Chromium open source). Will Google Chrome Web Store really kick them out over V2? We will host if needed. https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1534905779630661633 > > I’d be interest…
I see my misunderstanding, they're specifically maintaining the webRequest interface
As a proxy extension developer, this is absolutely maddening. We're forced to choose between auth-less open proxies (bad), or baking in a wacky authentication scheme through a side channel (also bad). MV3 drops in 2.5 months, and will leave tens of millions of proxy extension users unable to use products they paid money for. This is all on top of the many other issues with MV3 that Google is pushing under the guise o…
Could you run an auth-free proxy on localhost that in turn forwards traffic to a remote proxy that does require auth? You could have your intermediate proxy expose a local interface for configuration.