491–500 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's happening silently as part of a normal upgrade. No, this is not true. The large requirement comes after a user wants to use the feature, not as a part of the normal upgrade. If the user never engages with the feature, it's not downloaded.
According to above, it is triggered by the website calling the feature. The user might have no idea. That's not what consent looks like
Google Chrome just exists to make Google money at your expense, to sell your data and deplete your battery.
> Energy intensity of network data transfer: 0.06 kWh per GB, the mid-band of Pärssinen et al. (2018) "Environmental impact assessment of online advertising", Science of The Total Environment [14]. The paper reports a 0.04-0.10 kWh/GB range depending on the share of fixed-line vs mobile transfer and inclusion of end-user device energy. 0.06 is a defensible mid-point. 2018? An estimate from 8 years ago is going to be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea but when I mention Firefox my colleagues under 35 or so literally think I'm joking.
When Google stuffs AI into everything, people shrug. Can't expect anything else from big tech. When Firefox does it, it sparks outrage across the internet, with entire forums filled with people vowing to leave Firefox forever and switching to something like Waterfor or Ilp/Zorp/Floop instead. As a result, searching for experiences other people had with Firefox makes it sound like hell on earth, while people have litt…
i.e. when firefox does it, people wonder why they aren't using chrome. That's the entire point. The only thing that makes firefox attractive is if they don't do what google does, and they do almost everything google does.
Even if it results in extended campaigns of complaints and hostility from their most devoted users, and the loss of 95% of their installs. As far as I can tell the only thing they backed down on was destroying ublock, and that's because they recognized that it was an existential threat to firefox. The 3% market share that they have now would have become 0.3%, no matter what google did to prop them up.
I certainly don't recommend firefox any more. The amount of effort I have to go through to get the standard 2010 experience quality is absurd and I can't expect anyone else to think it's worth it. It's not worth it to dodge any of this bad behavior anymore, it's industry standard. Going through the effort of dodging it makes you stand out more, and makes you more trackable and targetable. For me it's just compulsive, and my values don't change when the values of the crowd changes. But I can't expect anyone else to download and maintain a git repo that allows you to have basic control over your UI, or to fill out captchas after every pageload.
If you're going to use plain firefox, you might as well use plain chrome. Both of them have the same degree of respect for you, and both of them are owned by the same company. Using plain firefox for freedom is like using an Android phone for freedom. It's amusing that google gets to play the "bad guy" in one of those stories (browser wars) and gets to play the "good guy" in the other (mobile wars.) It's all keyfabe. None of these companies are competing with each other.
> while people have little more to say about Chrome other than "Google gonna Google, but it's fast at least".
Wise words.
There's simply no reason to be using Google Chrome in 2026. Purge it from your computer and install a less user hostile browser. Google Chrome just exists to make Google money at your expense, to sell your data and deplete your battery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you can write an article about every new gigabyte released, and we can use more gigabytes talking about it, but other than that I don't see that any one gigabyte of software I don't want is especially more noteworthy than any other gigabyte of software I don't want. An xBox game can be 50+ gigs. Millions of gamers. Fire up the presses! I'm not at all saying nothing matters so we shouldn't care. I just disagre…
> An xBox game can be 50+ gigs. In my experience a game worth playing never exceeded 1 (one) gig in size. It is only incompetent creators that feel the need to bury their incompetence under gigabytes of irrelevance.
Stardew Valley, universally acclaimed and not graphically intensive at all, still takes up nearly 2 GB of space.
Your view on games is not grounded in the reality of modern gaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to tell you something: there is consumer demand for AI.
We'll never know, since companies seem determined to make it non-optional.
AI is being pushed so hard from the top down by every executive (who have been practically foaming at the mouth about AI for years now) it might as well be extruding from every port and seam on people's devices as if it were a buzzword/fomo diarrhea of some sort.