301–310 of 338 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, because of him, everytime I use ublock-less chrome on android I get angry, thanks a lot gorhill ! ;)
Firefox focus is worth a try. built in ad blockers, the ability to block javascript, private browsing is the default. Good stuff. There's also, I believe, a regular firefox for android which I think does do extensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hunt is under the impression that he has a right to force Web clients to consume content like he wants to after it has left his server. This is, of course, not how the Web works, and he should know better. There is no point in getting upset about it and then writing a blog entry. Content blocking is a direct consequence of past abuse. He must understand even though he thinks he does nothing wrong, the bar of acceptab…
> He must understand even though he thinks he does nothing wrong, the bar of acceptability for people who subscribe to content blocker update lists – after past abuse – is: no distraction at all. Simple solution for you then: Don't visit sites with advertising. By repeatedly visiting sites with advertising, you're basically saying, "I want all this content but I'm not willing to support them financially."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course you can. I can not understand the details of something like the webextensions surface area, but still can look at the polyfill and understand that it's well written, that the tests aren't useless, that the popularity isn't faked, and that the maintainer is worthy of trust. No you can't, at least not in the general case. You can trust Mozilla because it's Mozilla, but ultimately that's an "argument from au…
>No you can't, at least not in the general case. You can trust Mozilla because it's Mozilla, but ultimately that's an "argument from authority". I'm not saying absolute trust, I'm saying I trust them to write a better polyfill for extensions than I will. An argument from authority is okay when the alternative is an "argument from ignorance". I know I don't know the details, and I'm trusting someone who literally writ…
But that's not even the scenario here. You have the choice between bringing in a couple of lines of code you wrote yourself, or another dependency. Sure, in this case the vendor is entirely trustworthy and presumably competent. That's not the general case.
Let's say it was the general case, is it still worth increasing the complexity of your program for that little piece of functionality? Can you judge the runtime cost at all? What about bundle size? (Not applicable in this case, but still) Does the integrating the polyfill cause more work over a simpler solution?
Those are rhetorical questions, I don't want to keep on with the walls of text. The point is, the argument doesn't stop there.
> Counting "number of dependencies" is extremely hard, because like I said cpython does have quite a lot of dependencies, it just depends on where you draw the line.
CPython itself only has a handful of dependencies (libc, libffi, openssl, zlib, maybe a couple more) and almost all of them are optional. I'm drawing the line at actual dependencies of the program, not the operating system or the compiler (though neither GCC nor LLVM have a lot of dependencies either) or the basic build tools that ship with basically any UNIX-like system.
However, even if we added them all up I doubt we would have more "units" (programs, libraries) than in your average NodeJS project.
> And even if you do draw the line at the runtime or compiler, does that mean that the JS dependencies in my package.json that are dedicated to compilation and building don't count toward your numbers?
It doesn't matter, you're probably fucked either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is also expensive. In Canada, it's 12$/m, but in includes original shows, YouTube Music, and a bunch of things I would never use. I would gladly pay a couple bucks a month to remove ads, but the fact that it's more expensive than it needs to be and includes so much more than I care about makes me not want to.
$12/m is not expensive for most people living in Canada.
Just read Microsoft will allow ad blocker extensions (May build one in) in their new Chromium browser. Looks like I’m going to rewind 13 years and use IE again(IE of today). Such a stupid move by the do no evil company! Now they do no stupid too. EDIT: Here is link... https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/06/16/micr...
> Looks like I’m going to rewind 13 years and use IE again(IE of today). Why not using Firefox?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funniest thing is, I would happily pay Google a reasonable amount each month to have access to their service! Caveat being that they agreed to drop all tracking and adverts, of course. But I love Gmail, Drive, Youtube and, most of all, Maps and Earth! As things stand, though, if I gave Google any money, I'd be essentially wasting my time, because all I'd get in return would be dubious 'premium' features.
When it comes to at least Gmail and Drive, they do have a paid option with contracts preventing them from using your data for tracking, and it removes advertisements within those applications. https://gsuite.google.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're a little too optimistic, IMO. Running a website has costs. Even if it can be run by a single person in their spare time, servers and bandwidth costs money.
Nah, I just remember what it used to be like. Most of the stuff that's valuable's not that expensive to run. Some of it's fairly decentralizable. The part that makes it difficult and expensive is centralization and control. File distribution's solved and practically free to the distributor if you just want to publish and don't care about retaining control, counting views, and so on. Anyway the sites with the highest…
> Nah, I just remember what it used to be like.
A lot of "what it used to be like" worked because the Internet had a much smaller audience. In the late '90s and early '00s, social media barely existed at all. There was a time when most of the people online were techies, now everyone with a phone made within the last 10 years has access to the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it comes to at least Gmail and Drive, they do have a paid option with contracts preventing them from using your data for tracking, and it removes advertisements within those applications. https://gsuite.google.com/
Thanks for the link! The website is a bit opaque. Would you happen to know if the Basic suite already includes tracking prevention and no advertising?
https://gsuite.google.com/security/?secure-by-design_activeE... "Google does not collect, scan, or use your data in G Suite services for advertising purposes and we do not display ads in G Suite. We use your data to provide G Suite services, and for system support, such as spam filtering, virus detection, spell-checking, capacity planning, traffic routing, and the ability to search for emails and files within an individual account."
Cool. Is there a non-WebExtensions XUL version for us Pale Moon users?
Pale moon is a bad product made by horrendous individuals. For the technical reasons read https://www.howtogeek.com/335712/update-why-you-shouldnt-use... For the interpersonal reasons please see the lead developer acting like a spoiled child here. https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 Friends don't let friends use a crappy, out of date, insecure, janky browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, I just remember what it used to be like. Most of the stuff that's valuable's not that expensive to run. Some of it's fairly decentralizable. The part that makes it difficult and expensive is centralization and control. File distribution's solved and practically free to the distributor if you just want to publish and don't care about retaining control, counting views, and so on. Anyway the sites with the highest…
Static content, sure. But what about a dynamic site that gains a lot of popularity? Think someone making a reddit knockoff back when the reddit's main source code was open. It could be set up and maintained in a single person's spare time, but if the site got popular, the server power needed to maintain it would get astronomical for a single person. > Nah, I just remember what it used to be like. A lot of "what it us…
Just speculating, but reddit would probably be replaced by several sites (hundreds of popular ones, perhaps, thousands of less popular ones), many of which might permit login or shared feeds or something via the aforementioned means. RSS is still a thing, for that matter. You can also get by with much leaner sites even without going as far into old-school territory as HN and Craigslist, when you're not chasing marketing fads and adding tons of tracking JS and all kinds of other junk, so payload sizes don't need to be as large as they are.
And again, protocols could evolve. Something new similar to IPFS (though probably not actually IPFS) might reach production-ready status fast if there were a real need to distribute load. There are half-formed solutions to a lot of this waiting in the wings, just without much interest outside people who are into them for their own sake, because there's no audience for a somewhat-worse, much-less-addictive, spyware-free Facebook or Twitter, for instance. Community-driven alternatives have a nigh-hopeless battle while they're up against a money-spigot of ad dollars. Lots of developers who might help out with them don't, for that reason.
I mean hell chat was pretty decent and kinda mostly open for a while, but now it's fragmented into private services again, driven largely by the data-hoarders. Less open than even the AIM/ICQ days. Google's trying to do the same thing to email and the Web itself, largely in the name of "saving" them. Take away the ad dollars, the demand will shift away as those services shutter or start charging money, and open standards and enthusiast sites will take back over. Governments, in some cases, maybe (maps/navigation seems like a good one). No apocalypse, just a hiccup. Except for the dragnet spying companies.