41–50 of 919 posts
This isn't entirely without precedent. Firefox does something similar by greying out the `www` in the UI, Chrome just decided to take things a step further by hiding it entirely.
Is this really a big deal? Don't many websites either redirect the www to the non-www, or the other way around?
It's about the principle. www is a valid subdomain. Browsers are supposed to be as unopinionated as possible since they are browsers , not mediators, and their job is to implement the standards of the web.
This isn't entirely without precedent. Firefox does something similar by greying out the `www` in the UI, Chrome just decided to take things a step further by hiding it entirely.
This is idiotic and harmful. We already lost information about the protocol, because somebody believed it is "too complex" for users. Now we're losing other parts of the URL. It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me? It used to signify that a "known authority" certified that I'm connected to whatever I see in the URL bar. But now that browsers take liberties wit…
So they're doing it again, just slower: https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276454-google-wants-to...
I'm pretty sure the eventual plan is to force everyone to browse the web using a version of the App Store, which we all know is incredibly secure, and never difficult to use.
Spearphishing is still one of the most common ways of breaching a corporate network. If I target you, you will likely fall for one of my attempts. If you are a company rather than a person, my odds go way up, because I have N chances to trick someone rather than 1 (where N is roughly the number of people at the company with email access).
This is one of those things that everyone says "Ha, I'm smart. I'd notice. You can't trick me."
And maybe you are. But you're also distracted. And that's my greatest advantage against you. All I need is to sneak in an unexpected Github prompt that looks completely authentic, and now I have your Github password. Wanna bet you don't have 2FA turned on, even though you know you really ought to? And even if you do, it's getting easier to social engineer your way past AT&T's lovely customer support: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caVEiitI2vg
Ok, what's the point?
This: Every character in the URL bar unrelated to the apex name is a deadly distraction.
Right now, how do you know you're actually on HN instead of some knockoff? "ycombinator.com".
How many characters do you have to read unrelated to that? "https://news. /item?id=17927972"
The most vital part of a URL for vetting identity is also, usually, the hardest to see.
Now, I don't know whether google made this change in order to assist with this. But it's one possible justification, and a step in a good direction.
We may not like it, just like we didn't like when Google removed the clickable "cached" links from search results, but in this case consumer protection outweighs our urges as a power user.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/
WTF? People get angry when you just move their cheese without notice.
This is idiotic and harmful. We already lost information about the protocol, because somebody believed it is "too complex" for users. Now we're losing other parts of the URL. It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me? It used to signify that a "known authority" certified that I'm connected to whatever I see in the URL bar. But now that browsers take liberties wit…
Yo, this is... going too far, c'mon now. While sure, www seems odd now, it's still a subdomain and we're inching into territory of obscuring things that matter for small gains in end-user perception that aren't _that_ impactful.