Why do people love JavaScript and want everything written in it?
Atwood's Law: “Any application that can be written in JavaScript, will eventually be written in JavaScript.”
It's just how the universe works.
Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
181–190 of 303 posts
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking power away from the user seems to be a large part of the appeal of WASM. Wasn't it just a year or two ago that it was being reported that 75% of WASM modules are malicious? A study from a previous year had said 50% of all websites using it were malicious so the trend line isn't looking great. I don't know how we got from "don't download and install random software from untrusted sources on your devices" to "le…
It has exactly the same potential in the control and code-running respects as (minified) JavaScript. It’s overrepresented in malware because it’s faster, i.e. better for cryptominers. (Many sandbox breaches come from JavaScript’s complexity.)
Right, did everyone forget about ASM.js? We already had conpile-to-js, it was just a horrible subset of more efficient JS. WASM is just the extension and further development of that.
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess we disagree on whether advertising goods and services to people should be considered a crime.
Advertising no. Tracking individuals and building profiles about them across the web, much less clear, probably yes.
I feel similarly, though I also think that, provided the intent to track and profile-build is made clear to users up-front before they opt in to using something, the onus shifts to them (the user).
(OTOH if that intention is conveyed in p. 37 of an EULA in dense legalese, it seems clearly designed to swamp the user. I'd like to see a lot more attention paid to this in legal circles.)
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#184There's a product here that's been waiting to happen for awhile. I've been anticipating somebody cross-compiling another browser engine to WASM but this works, too. Deliver your site only to the "inner browser" (that the user has no control over because it's heavily obfuscated and tricked-out with anti-debugging code) and you eliminate all ad blockers. Throw some DNS-over-HTTPS w/ certificate pinning in for good meas…
> Deliver your site only to the "inner browser" (that the user has no control over because it's heavily obfuscated and tricked-out with anti-debugging code) and you eliminate all ad blockers. Throw some DNS-over-HTTPS w/ certificate pinning in for good measure and you kill DNS-based ad blockers too. I'm confused how the "inner browser" meaningfully helps you accomplish this. How is this any easier or more effective t…
[deleted]
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
If AI-powered ad blocking becomes ubiquitous, it will mean the end of high-quality free services like Google Search, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Translate and YouTube, for all of which I much prefer to pay with my attention rather than cold, hard cash. I have no doubt that current AI is capable of this (in fact I'm sure it would be trivial for GPT-3.5 and well within reach of even locally-run LLMs), the question is wh…
There is no such thing as a high quality ad supported service. Ads make the user experience worse in every single circumstance. I forget how bad Google Search is until I get a new computer/phone without ad blocking enabled
I find Maps and YouTube are still good products
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do. I think advertising of all kinds should be illegal. I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent.
> mind rape I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
> Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape?
I'll bite: yes. If you show me images of goatse or mutilated bodies in a war zone without my consent that’s mind rape. Same with bring politics forcibly into the workplace, showing Fox News (or MSNBC or whatever) at the bbq joint while I’m trying to eat or at the gym while I’m trying to exercise, or screaming at me in protest while I’m trying to access family planning services.
Just like women have the right to walk down the street in whatever clothing they want without getting raped, I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape.
> If not, where do you personally draw the line?
Consent is implicit via set and setting. If you want to challenge peoples viewpoints go to college or start a poker night with a bunch of philosophically diverse neighbors who like to argue politics. If you want to shove ads down everyone's throat, go join an influencer support group.
Everyone else deserves to live free from constant mental assault.
> And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
Judges, the people who interpret laws.
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a great language that many people use every day.
I actually agree with that. Javascript has a good heart. Just wish they'd stop trying to add classes to the language.
I've found closures can execute faster but classes take less memory and instantiate faster. Though rarely it matters.
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do. I think advertising of all kinds should be illegal. I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent.
> mind rape I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
So, I think there’s a massive difference between ads in de-facto public spaces where consent is impossible, and ads in an environment where there’s full affirmative consent.
Billboards on a highway: mind rape.
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do. I think advertising of all kinds should be illegal. I consider it to be a form of mind rape when they forcibly insert their brands and products into my mind without my consent.
> mind rape I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
Not at all. I draw the line at consent. Nothing wrong with HN showing me your comments. I came here to see comments. If they started showing up while I'm watching a video somewhere else I would feel violated and swiftly block them. Nothing wrong with showing me products when I open a store app. That's what I opened the app to see. Showing me products while I'm trying to read an article is a violation.
Advertising is by definition noise. Superfluous. Information I did not ask for. Irrelevant stuff that someone paid money to put in front of me. Information I explicitly ask for is not advertising, it's simply information.
My cognitive functions are inalienable, they are not theirs to sell to the highest bidder, nor are they currency to pay for services with. I have attention deficit disorder. It's hard enough for me to focus without these corporations trying to grab my attention. I consider their attempts to do so a violation of my personal integrity. I consider ad blocking to be justified self-defense. I will literally do everything in my power to avoid looking at ads.
Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> mind rape I'll bite. Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? If not, where do you personally draw the line? And, just as importantly, who do you feel should get to decide in the general case?
> Is hearing or seeing any idea that you have not previously consented to likewise mind rape? I'll bite: yes. If you show me images of goatse or mutilated bodies in a war zone without my consent that’s mind rape. Same with bring politics forcibly into the workplace, showing Fox News (or MSNBC or whatever) at the bbq joint while I’m trying to eat or at the gym while I’m trying to exercise, or screaming at me in protes…
> I have the right to experience the world without constantly being bombarded by commercial and political mind rape.
Exactly. Our minds are sacred.