Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

uBlock Origin Lite: Description

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 155 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#131

Post by capableweb »

icelancer wrote: post #87
capableweb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who never heard of "Thriving Movement" nor "DEI-type initiaives" before, it seems to be around making the workplace (Wikimedia Foundation) more diverse, equal and inclusive. At a glance, those seems like good things to introduce to global organizations (especially foundations) that is supposed to be represented by the whole world. But I can agree that it seems like a large part of the budget, for being wha…

I'm not morally judging them. If they think it's a good idea, good for them. I'm just not interested in funding those initiatives at that percentage of budget and would rather send the money to other essential Internet companies who have lesser investments in those ideas. I still give some to Wikimedia, just not as much.

Thank you for explaining your position! Which internet companies do you currently donate to that also publishes exactly what they spend their money on, so you can make sure they don't spend similar amount on similar initiatives?

In my experience, the Wikimedia Foundation seems to be the one who is most transparent about where funds go, while organizations like Internet Archive doesn't make a lot of data public, at least via their own website.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#132

Post by MichaelCollins »

flatiron wrote: post #30
MichaelCollins wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, uBlock Origin Minus was a better name. "Lite" is carrying water for Google.

People in HN get a chuckle about the name. 99% of people would see it and just download something else that isn’t “minus” for some reason.

A chuckle? I don't see the humor in it.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#134

Post by brigandish »

capableweb wrote: post #83
icelancer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are fast-growing sections of their budget slated for political-like causes, not technical ones that keep the website online and accessible. They call it the Thriving Movement and it's largely based around DEI-type initiatives. "The Thriving Movement budget has increased from $14.3 million last fiscal year to $36.7 million in this budget which represents an increase of $22.4 million or 157%. It has also grown fr…

As someone who never heard of "Thriving Movement" nor "DEI-type initiaives" before, it seems to be around making the workplace (Wikimedia Foundation) more diverse, equal and inclusive. At a glance, those seems like good things to introduce to global organizations (especially foundations) that is supposed to be represented by the whole world. But I can agree that it seems like a large part of the budget, for being wha…

> those seems like good things

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. If I were a cynical man I might speculate that it's not because things that look good don't get scrutinised as much but that anyone wanting less scrutiny might try painting their aims as "good" and those who object as therefore "bad". But I digress. Wikimedia's mission is[1]:

> to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally

What does DEI at their workplace have to do with that?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Mission

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#135

Post by icelancer »

capableweb wrote: post #131
icelancer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not morally judging them. If they think it's a good idea, good for them. I'm just not interested in funding those initiatives at that percentage of budget and would rather send the money to other essential Internet companies who have lesser investments in those ideas. I still give some to Wikimedia, just not as much.

Thank you for explaining your position! Which internet companies do you currently donate to that also publishes exactly what they spend their money on, so you can make sure they don't spend similar amount on similar initiatives? In my experience, the Wikimedia Foundation seems to be the one who is most transparent about where funds go, while organizations like Internet Archive doesn't make a lot of data public, at le…

Wikimedia is not unique. CharityWatch is a good place to start. Many high-rated nonprofits detail very specifically where all funding goes.

https://www.charitywatch.org/

Also, Wikimedia may not be as transparent as you think. Here's more information on that, but the whole thread is worth reading.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32841892

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#136

Post by capableweb »

icelancer wrote: post #135
capableweb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for explaining your position! Which internet companies do you currently donate to that also publishes exactly what they spend their money on, so you can make sure they don't spend similar amount on similar initiatives? In my experience, the Wikimedia Foundation seems to be the one who is most transparent about where funds go, while organizations like Internet Archive doesn't make a lot of data public, at le…

Wikimedia is not unique. CharityWatch is a good place to start. Many high-rated nonprofits detail very specifically where all funding goes. https://www.charitywatch.org/ Also, Wikimedia may not be as transparent as you think. Here's more information on that, but the whole thread is worth reading. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32841892

Thanks yet again!

So Wikimedia is a non-profit AFAIK, you have any idea why it's not listed on charitywatch.org?

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#137

Post by gorhill »

nightpool wrote: post #68

I'm really happy that Gorhill has listened to feedback on the branding and explanation of this, and added back in the ability to "opt in" to extended permissions on individual sites. Thank you for your work, and I'm sorry if my comments in the preview HN thread came off as overly hostile, because given the original comments you made about MV3, I couldn't imagine this sort of outcome. I hope that you or someone else s…

> I'm still worried that without an MV3-compatible version of full uBlock Origin, users are still going to assume that "MV3 means that ad blockers are broken".

They currently are when compared to their MV2 counterpart.

The AdGuard MV3 version which came out earlier this month[1] shows this. Though it does its best to deal with the technical challenges which comes with MV3, the end result is poor efficiency- and reliability-wise compared to its MV2 counterpart.

This is easy for anyone to see: open the browser's own Task Manager (Esc-Shift works) and notice how the service worker associated to AdGuard MV3 is regularly (every few seconds) evicted and respawn.

When it re-spawns, the process's CPU and memory usage peaks, with memory usage shooting up to between 100-200MB. This happens repeatedly every few seconds or whenever you navigate to a new webpage.

CPU/memory efficiency has always been a primary feature of uBO, and I can't release an MV3 version suffering such efficiency setback (this on top of matching algorithm not being fully compatible with that of uBO).

However I am willing to work on an MV3 version which does not suffer no CPU/memory efficiency issues, hence uBO Lite, which takes advantage of new possibilities in MV3 to be fully declarative, at the cost of sacrificing some capabilities.

---

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32648131

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#138

Post by HWR_14 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #27
jjulius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... it's often a positive signifier that describes low resource usage/costs Third sentence: >This means that uBOL itself does not consume CPU/memory resources while content blocking is ongoing -- uBOL's service worker process is required only when you interact with the popup panel or the option pages.

Sounds like a plus for manifest v3 then. Fewer resources, fewer permissions, to do most of the same task.

It's not doing the same task though. It's being assigned the same task and doing a worse job at it. Because a better solution is unavailable.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#139

Post by webmobdev »

novok wrote: post #116
webmobdev wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switch to Orion browser - https://browser.kagi.com/ - it's a Safari / webkit clone with built-in uBlock Origin.

Yeah i use brave which does something similar.

Brave is a Chromium clone with their own built-in adblocker. Orion is a Safari / Webkit clone re-engineered to work with Ublock Origin (which is currently the best ad blocker). So on a mac or ios, Orion will be slightly better.

Re: uBlock Origin Lite: Description

#140

Post by runjake »

jchw wrote: post #73
runjake wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, do you donate? https://archive.org/donate?origin=wbwww-TopNavDonateButton (Couldn't find links for uBo and ytdl. I've asked gorhill where to donate in the past and they've refused donations.)

Note that you cannot manage your recurring IA donation for any reason without manually contacting them. For this reason I have not moved my IA donation to my newer credit card nor increased my donation since it was set up. I do not know if this is a dark pattern or just an oddly limited system, but the only officially recommended solution is to use PayPal. So I'd recommend that. https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i…

Thanks for that note.

This is a non-starter for me.

Post reply on HN