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

Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

goose.icu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 303 posts

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#271

Post by matheusmoreira »

lelanthran wrote: post #269
matheusmoreira wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rape is violation of the body without consent. My mind is part of my body. I feel violated.

> Rape is violation of the body without consent. No, it isn't. It's defined in terms of penetration. Both legal definitions and dictionary definitions. If your argument depends on a word having a different meaning from the dictionary definition, it's your argument that is wrong, not the dictionary. > My mind is part of my body. I feel violated. Violation is not rape.

We're arguing dictionary definitions now?

> define rape

> The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.

> "the rape of Europa by Zeus."

> The act of pillaging or plundering.

> "the rape of the city by the invaders."

> Abusive or improper treatment; spoiling or abuse.

> "the rape of the land by polluters."

Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#272

Post by toast0 »

skrebbel wrote: post #223
toast0 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, I wrote an IRC client in mIRC script... It was fun (and not very usable)

That's actually very impressive. mIRCscript is absolutely awful.

Yeah, but they added sockets at some point. It was pretty handy for minimal clients for flooding/desyncs. Not that I was doing any of that (sorry undernet).

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#273

Post by matheusmoreira »

superdug wrote: post #218
matheusmoreira wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with buying and selling stuff or with transacting in general. I have a problem trusting sellers. I refuse to take them at their word. I do not want to hear what they have to say at all. I want to decide what I want to buy based on completely independent factors and then, after I have decided, come to the seller to finalize the purchase. I do not want or need advertising, I need its antithesis: quali…

But again, why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Especially in the instance of stated facts that can be fairly easily verified by anyone’s personal definition of a trusted source, most especially when presented with simply an incentive to use a stored resource that neither you or any of your trusted sources of truth were even aware existed at all to begin wit…

> why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization?

Because I don't consent to it. I don't want it. That's all the justification necessary. They violate my boundaries despite the fact I say no.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#274

Post by carlosjobim »

toast0 wrote: post #165
chii wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and stop participating in online society? Are you going to stop buying from ecommerce sites, viewing youtube, and reading your gmail? I think it's an inevitable future tbh. The users have lost - they just dont know it yet. Google's WEI [1] is their first foray into this, and i dont doubt there will be future iterations they try to push through. The browser-in-browser is but one alternative idea. [1] https://en.wikipe…

When ecommerce becomes unweildy enough, I'll just go to walmart in person. I can pay my credit card bills by mail. I'd be ok losing youtube. There's some good content there, but there's so much garbage and I can only hear people begging me to like and subscribe so many times. I've got more dvds and blu-rays than I can watch, and there's so many at good will too. All I get in gmail is transactional mail for other peop…

Have you read the famous fable about the fox and the grapes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#275

Post by superdug »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #273
superdug wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Especially in the instance of stated facts that can be fairly easily verified by anyone’s personal definition of a trusted source, most especially when presented with simply an incentive to use a stored resource that neither you or any of your trusted sources of truth were even aware existed at all to begin wit…

> why can’t one of the factors be advertising first followed by due diligence before finalization? Because I don't consent to it. I don't want it. That's all the justification necessary. They violate my boundaries despite the fact I say no.

But how is it beneficial to those who don’t feel violated beyond the point of absolute necessity to always refuse consent because not every advertisement is guaranteed by nature to always be evil and have not yet come to a similar conclusion as yours as they believe that advertisement as a whole on a digital medium specifically in regards to transactions on a monetary level has not yet met their personal defined level of it being ultimately net evil. And therefore feel arguing against a ban of the practice entirely is not currently the most pressing issue with advertising that you keep telling them, their argument holds no merit, which lends itself to the personal assumption that what they are doing is ultimately wrong and therefore they should feel ashamed for it. They are not currently experiencing a feeling of guilt or shame about expressing their opinion and you are insisting, but not projecting, that they should. Ultimately this devolves into a basic summation of simply having their feelings hurt and wanting you to stop arguing your point, as you both actually understand each each other and can therefore continue this civil discussion we’re having and all continually agree that ultimately our shared responsibility society is working and we are still progressing despite the challenges.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#276

Post by matheusmoreira »

postalrat wrote: post #187
matheusmoreira wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Closures are nice. I'm a fan of simple objects with prototypes myself.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#277

Post by lelanthran »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #271
lelanthran wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rape is violation of the body without consent. No, it isn't. It's defined in terms of penetration. Both legal definitions and dictionary definitions. If your argument depends on a word having a different meaning from the dictionary definition, it's your argument that is wrong, not the dictionary. > My mind is part of my body. I feel violated. Violation is not rape.

We're arguing dictionary definitions now? > define rape > The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. > "the rape of Europa by Zeus." > The act of pillaging or plundering. > "the rape of the city by the invaders." > Abusive or improper treatment; spoiling or abuse. > "the rape of the land by polluters." Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there.

> Who knows? Maybe one day there'll be a "rape of the mind" dictionary entry in there.

Well, when there is you can claim your argument doesn't trivialise rape. Until then your claim is baseless.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#278

Post by TheMode »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #243
TheMode wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if Google gets its revenue solely from ads. Doesn't it mean that you are paying for the ads you see? I would rather have all google products be paid, and lessen the incentive for business to spend a large share of their revenue on advertisement.

>Doesn't it mean that you are paying for the ads you see? I don't follow, sorry. By "you", do you mean the end-user, sitting in front of their browser? I'd agree that that person is paying Google with their attention (hopefully in exchange for other valuable content nearby in time or space). But it's the companies trying to advertise stuff that pay Google cash (in exchange for that attention). Google then pays a cut…

Companies pay Google with the money they got from you. They aren't getting "attention" they are getting future potential sales which will fund the next advertising round.

> I don't think Google would have ever gotten off the ground if you had to pay cash to search for stuff -- do you?

If online advertisement became illegal, Google or somebody else would have gotten off by selling search as a service.

I am not saying that this move would have made Google more successful, they are already successful. But I do not believe that this success is reaching us, consumers.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#279

Post by maciekpaprocki »

sirk390 wrote: post #220
maciekpaprocki wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wait. why not iframes?

For example you could set cookies before visiting another website. This is currently impossible in an iframe but possible in a browser. I've wanted to do this to automatically login users on some external websites.

That's a security feature. If you would have that in any environment it would be massive security issue. If you actually own the service you can still do that.

Re: Shadow: New browser engine made almost entirely in JavaScript

#280

Post by DemocracyFTW2 »

Pretty much the solution to better browsing that I've been thinking of for some time and of course never managed to even start about implementing it (or believing I could or should): have one browser / hidden level get all web pages complete with all the bad stuff (or at least the required cookies and advertising) left in, then give the user a sanitized view of that. Note you could do things like rendering obnoxious play-on-load videos as subdued stills that still allow the user to click on to view if they feel inclined; also should be possible to somehow cut the ads out of YT videos with some more work, and YT wouldn't know (the way it should be).
Post reply on HN