LinkedIn is searching your browser extensions

Post by cyral » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 4:34 PM UTC

fleebee wrote: post #419

slfnflctd wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human journalists and marketing copy writers have been writing like this for at least 50 years, if not considerably longer. I am exhausted by so many people calling writing out as AI without sufficient proof other than writing style. Some things are more obvious, sure... maybe I'm just too stupid to see a lot of the rest of it? But so much of what gets called out seems incredibly familiar to me compared with traditio…

You're right that (some) marketing copy writers have been writing in this style for decades, but suddenly every second tech blogger has assumed the same voice in the past 2 years. Not everyone is as sensitive to it. I read this crap daily so I've developed an awareness and I'm confident in calling it out. I don't think I've personally seen a single false positive on HN. If anything, too much slop goes through unconte…

Post by xXSLAYERXx » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

haswell wrote: post #14

The headline seems pretty misleading. Here’s what seems to actually be going on: > Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers. This does seem invasive. It also seems like what I’d expect…

Post by BrokenCogs » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

jijijijij wrote: post #214

an0malous wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it — it can be frustrating to encounter so much low effort AI content these days. But I think it’s worth looking at the bright side here: the increase in our production of entropy from GPU consumption will hasten the heat death of the universe. Would you like me to suggest some AI summarizer tools you could use to more efficiently read AI generated content in the meantime?

Nice try, but you em-dashed like a filthy human. The drone has been dispatched.

Post by throwawayq3423 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 4:36 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #426

b112 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

E-ink is getting cheaper and cheaper, there's a lot of 6" screen devices for $100. If it dropped to $100 for a 11" screen, that would be a respectable size for a magazine. I cite eink as most are distraction free, or can be, and are very easy on the eyes. Such content would also suck with flashy ads too. It's pretty easy tech I think, it's just never hit a flash point. But it could.

You miss the point. We literally had all of this. We had regular, affordable, high quality printed media for every hobby and interest and industry, that you could get delivered to your home address and collect in your own archive if you want, and your local library could do the same. Those pieces of paper could not track anything about you. They tried, selling their subscriber lists, but that was the best tracking th…

Post by throwawayq3423 » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

i_love_retros wrote: post #249

lastofthemojito wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is why I run ad blockers. It's pretty wild that we live in a world where the actual FBI has recommended we use ad blockers to protect ourselves, and if everyone actually listened, much of the Internet (and economy) as we know it would disappear. The FBI is like "you should protect yourself from the way that the third largest company in the world does business", and the average person's response is "nah, that w…

[flagged]