261–270 of 372 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two big ones are: 1. Watching window.innerHeight/innerWidth for sudden, large decreases, indicating that the user just opened the inspector. 2. Logging objects to the console with toString methods and checking if that method gets called.
1. should be trivial to avoid, by opening dev tools in a new window but 2. I have no idea, except the browser vendors would add a "stealth dev mode"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is quite clear. The question is, why did they go backwards on functionality. They took a simple user interface and removed a single useful feature from it, and what remains is a much more tedious way to do the same thing. Why? What was the benefit? The author speculates that it's to make user cookie control more difficult.
The reason was probably that no one ever needs to delete just a subset of cookies from a site. I certainly never have, and I'm a pretty technically-minded user. (Other than for development, in which case I'm using dev tools anyway.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. All the functionality is already built into Chrome right here: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/devtools/storage/cookies/ Contrary to the headline, Chrome isn't removing the ability to do anything -- they're just removing it from the preferences interface, where I'm not sure it really ever made sense to include in the first place. Truly, editing/deleting individual cookies isn't something any regular u…
> deleting individual cookies isn't something any regular user ever needs to do I disagree. A problem just recently with a gov site req'd you delete their cookies to resolve it (as an interim solution until they get around some year to fix the issue).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s more and more obvious we need competition in the browser space. Firefox as an excellent and performant alternative. Personally I use Chrome for work and Firefox for personal stuff.
Why not use Edge if you need to use a chromium based browser?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can also navigate to the site in the browser and then view the detailed data The author addresses this point (or has now addressed it) in the addendum to point out an "observer effect" shortcoming: This information can be seen with the web inspector in both Chrome and Safari. Yes, but the crucial difference is that you have to navigate to an individual site in a browser window in order to see the site data in t…
Not trying to defend anyone here, but I wonder if there's a non-nefarious reason for this. Specifically, there have been a lot of changes to cookies lately because malicious actors (malware/adware) figured out how to access the cookie store and infer/determine cookie information from other sites. I suspect that maybe this cookie store is kept in a more secure part of the application and only the cookies relevant to t…
The tools are designed for developers who often want to manually edit cookies on pages they are debugging.
> By the way, before anyone runs off and yells "Switch to Safari" or something like that, keep in mind that Safari is actually in a worse state and doesn't have detailed cookie and site information at all. It does, but it's split between two places. You can see a list of all sites that have stored data in Preferences > Privacy > Manage Website Data... (no option to view here, just delete). You can also navigate to th…
Why Safari? The only sane choice is Firefox.
I use Safari because of keychain and continuity. For example my Mac Mini can autofill 2FA tokens sent to my phone.
I use Firefox for web development and for sites I don’t trust and don’t want tracking me.
I only use Chrome for Gmail and YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By default it doesnt, and although I'd certainly advise going over all Brave's settings once, then you have the safest (as in not outdated like some other privacy forks) and privacy respecting Chrome based browser around.
They also run the only decent, independent search engine that has _its own_, _uncensored_ index. DDG was perceptibly worse than Google, but Brave Search is about on par, and the latency seems to be better as well. I maybe have to go to Google once or twice a month now instead of several times a day DDG would require. I know a bit about Google search, and frankly I'm stunned by what Brave was able to pull off here. I'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also run the only decent, independent search engine that has _its own_, _uncensored_ index. DDG was perceptibly worse than Google, but Brave Search is about on par, and the latency seems to be better as well. I maybe have to go to Google once or twice a month now instead of several times a day DDG would require. I know a bit about Google search, and frankly I'm stunned by what Brave was able to pull off here. I'…
Don't understand the downvotes, but brave search is a pretty decent product so far. Competition is always good, especially in the area of search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is quite clear. The question is, why did they go backwards on functionality. They took a simple user interface and removed a single useful feature from it, and what remains is a much more tedious way to do the same thing. Why? What was the benefit? The author speculates that it's to make user cookie control more difficult.
The reason was probably that no one ever needs to delete just a subset of cookies from a site. I certainly never have, and I'm a pretty technically-minded user. (Other than for development, in which case I'm using dev tools anyway.)