I agree, but I suspect this was also what was believed when they originally did it and adversaries found very clever ways to find that cookie store - that part at least is true, which is why I bother mentioning it, given the complexity of browsers it is likely very daunting to redesign this kind of thing around the existing features. Anyways, I'm glad I'm not working on browsers, it seems like an ever-losing cat and…
Those two things are unrelated if there is such interaction and the fix was removing the dialog I would be scared to use that browser. So whether your theory is true or not, no one should use Chrome.
This kind of thinking can go quite far if taken to its logical conclusion. The question therefore is, do _you_ want to live in a world where everyone is fighting everyone else over the most irrelevant of actions or even wrongthink? I know I don't. I much prefer to be persuaded to vote for or against something than have to state my opinions under the barrel of a proverbial gun. After a free and fair election, I accept…
> This kind of thinking can go quite far if taken to its logical conclusion The logical conclusion of it being permitted is...that it will be done when the utility of the impact it is perceived as likely to have outweighs the perceived disutility of the protest action, including any beneficial exchange foregone. Which is, all in all, not very much, which matches pretty well with observed behavior. > After a free and…
Bet it looks like that if your "protest action" is confined to Twitter and TikTok. From where I sit, your "protest action" over the past year achieved NEGATIVE results. Murders and crime are UP. Segregation is UP. Racial strife is UP. I fail to see the "impact" other than several billions in damage, rising crime, and a senile octogenarian in the White House, who is the direct cause of incarceration of hundreds of thousands of African Americans due to his own misguided "legislation" from the 80s. Wonderful, wonderful "impact".
So would I. I'd gladly and voluntarily pay, say, $10/mo for a family subscription, paid with crypto. I'm not sure why they aren't offering that.
Yeah, I don't see what the downside is either. For companies - It doesn't sound too hard to implement and seems like it would be a good source of revenue. Plus paying subscribers will be more 'loyal' in terms of moving their searches across. For users - you get more of a guarantee that the companies statements about privacy and impartiality are true, because there is less incentive for them to break that.
Especially considering that crypto is already built into their browser.
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'…
These days Google just takes you to the site with the most ads. The quality of the search results has nosedived in the last ten years.
Not just "today". In late 00s folks at Microsoft Bing noticed that every time they'd release relevance improvements, Google within a couple of days would boost its search relevance just enough to stay a pace ahead. The running theory at MS was that they had a lot of gas in the tank relevance-wise, but artificially hobbled it, so that it's just above Bing's. Why? Because fewer people will click on the ads if the results are _too_ relevant. They'll click on the links instead.
Alternatively, Profile Switcher for Firefox provides a Chrome-like interface: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc...
I couldn't tell from the link, but does it let me run two profiles side by side? This is the only thing that makes FF awkward for me when not using a Mac.
Yes. With the extension, you can launch any other profile and a new window under that profile will be opened. There is no limit to the number of profiles that can be simultaneously active. The extension menu also lets you add, remove, and edit profiles.
"As far as I know, there's been no public discussion of this change, and Google employees may have accidentally leaked the information to me in my innocuous bug report." There are constant changes to Chrome and these get pushed out in "updates" to selected groups of users, aka "Field Trials". I have never seen any public discussion of any of these changes prior to including them in automatic updates. What makes this…
Thank you. The pretence (naivety) of "there must be a good reason" has to stop
There’s usually a “good reason” — however that “good reason” is subjective to the people maintaining the application and might not align with the preferences of its users. Reasons don’t really matter to users though. It’s pointless arguing if we should assume innocence or guilt because irrespective of the developers motives, if a particular feature is a show stopper for you then you switch to a platform that supports…
I agree with what you pointed out about subjectivity. I think it’s still worth discussing though to serve as a warning to others who act with their own best intentions only to have them get bitten. Without calling this out it just always leans on the malicious side which doesn’t trend with reality in my experience.
In terms of end users driving decisions ultimately, I agree. That said, this is a discussion forum so I figured it was open for discussion and assumed that folks would be deciding on their own how to react to the change.
I guess this all depends on what we think we’re having a discussion about!
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…
> Not trying to defend anyone here, but I wonder if there's a non-nefarious reason for this. The tools are designed for developers who often want to manually edit cookies on pages they are debugging.
I know that. It seems like a given for this forum and topic specifically that I am not ignorant of that.
Safari is also generally trending in the right way, while Chrome is headed in the wrong way.
Why so?
Apple doesn’t make money from ads (yet), so there is no harm and a lot of marketing benefit in pushing privacy from ad trackers. Google is an ad company, so good privacy controls in Chrome hurts them.