441–450 of 497 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The strange part there is that this is mobile Chrome following the mobile Safari UX which has never been criticised like this. It's just bizarre.
Apple users choose to get a system that does different things that restrict them in non-obvious ways. Those people are not going to complain much. Chrome is the default option for browsers. People don't really choose it anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes!! When I see other people browsing on Android without uBlock I'm in awe of their patience.
With Blockada, you can block lots of stuff at the DNS level, so it's more tolerable. But it doesn't block everything, uBlock is smarter. Still I keep it running, it's especially great for all the other apps trying to talk to ad or analytics servers. (I'd actually like to combine Blockada and NoRoot Firewall though...) I use an old phone (until Librem ships...) and I switch back and forth between Chrome Beta and Firef…
I imagine they'd address at least some of your qualms with Chrome.
Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…
That's a very large if, IMO. We cannot do this, practically speaking.
Even in semantically meaningless URLs like the one in your example, there is still an important part of semantics retained and that is identity. By having the URL available you can at least compare two URLs and judge whether they are the same URL or not. Additionally, there is a 1-to-1 association between URL and content: for each unique URL, you get some unique content.
I agree there might be some UX improvement possible here, but faced with the looming threat of Google AMP, it's not a time to twiddle our thumbs and idly fantasize about this without a complete and robust plan on how this improvement might be done.
I also think that by hiding the URL we will make ordinary users even more ignorant about how the web works. It will truly appear like magic, since they will see identical strings in the URL bar yet they will be served different content. How does this even work? No one knows! Expect users that won't even know how to copy a link to someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a wacky far-out conspiracy theory to notice that Google is attempting to dominate the internet. It's a serious problem that we need to do something about before it's too late.
It is, however, a wacky far-out conspiracy theory to claim that Google is developing this feature for the purpose of internet domination. The given purpose is phishing prevention, which is the same reason why this exact feature has been part of Safari for years yet no one pointed out that it was a nefarious attempt by Apple to takeover the web and further their walled garden.
No, it's not. Are you aware that Google is mangling AMP URLs to make them look like original URLs and hide the fact that they are hosted by Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree at all that the URL is meaningless to humans. If I want my friend to read this page, I copy the link and send it to him. That ID above is clearly the comment page ID. I don't have to see the backend code to know that. I'm certainly not an average user, but I am a human. The URL on nearly every site gives me all sorts of information.
Yeah, but you're going to copy that URL to your buddy. You're not going to read it out to him.
I don't believe this is an attack. It hides the full address, but you can hover over it to see the whole thing, or even enable full addresses easily. I believe this is legitimately done to improve UX for users who may be phished. Tying this to AMP is a mistake.
"Won't somebody please think of the children?!"
I still haven't found a good answer why they do this. "Makes it harder to tell if the current site is legitimate" sounds like an excuse. If you are the perfect target for a phishing attack (= clicks on everything, enters passwords everywhere, has no clue about host names) then you also won't be able to understand what Chrome presents you in the address bar after obfuscation. My best explanation so far is that the Chr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is a much more performant browser for actually rendering heavy pages.
I have 18 windows open in Firefox vs chromium that say otherwise. Why would I lie lol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i think its because apple isnt trying to mitm your web browsing with some amp-style service (yet)
But Apple does blatantly MITM urls into their own proprietary walled garden! Just a few days ago there was a HN post about Safari On iOS 14 redirecting from certain articles to Apple News. It was, of course, quickly flagged away from the front page. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24113056
what does that imply?
Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…