3 ms·
No. It is incredibly hard to be cordial when you're trying to ruin the web and say that you're actually helping. I am livid. Because of content blockers the spe
by drenvuk 7y ago
No. It is incredibly hard to be cordial when you're trying to ruin the web and say that you're actually helping. I am livid. Because of content blockers the speed of web browsing has increased substantially. Because of content blockers users' security is vastly improved. ublock Origin has been doing the right thing and now you're going to make it harder. With the limits imposed by the declarative net requests at 150k developers and extensions that are safeguarding us are being hamstrung.
In addition, because of the Chrome extension team's obsession with using js workers instead of persistent processes we're going to have to deal with finding work-arounds for holding important and unencrypted things in memory. Someone brought up the issue that some extensions will have to create a newly pinned tab to the top left of the browser because of these inane bullshit rules removing the background page. Imagine a stack of pinned tabs just so your extensions can do their jobs. Does that sound dumb enough yet? Sometimes it's necessary to hold a lot of information in memory because the user actually wants the extension to do a certain task in a reasonable amount of time. They are making our jobs harder because they're too stubborn to understand that extension developers are the ones who create the magic. This is central governance at its finest.
These rules are stupid as hell.
- dfabulich 7y agoThe rule limits Google's proposing are more generous than the limits Apple puts on content blockers. Apple allows only 50K rules. And it turns out 50K rules is actually fine! Declarative rules engines are better and preserve privacy better. This is Google following Apple's lead and doing the right thing.
- buckminster 7y agoPlease don't spam the same comment multiple times. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20168111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20168111
- mixedCase 7y ago> The rule limits Google's proposing are more generous than the limits Apple puts on content blockers And Firefox and most Chromium forks have no limit. Does that mean they have infinite generosity? Seriously, how is Apple being bad at something an argument for lowering other options to the same level? Right now I have ~200K filters enabled on this machine. EasyList alone is sitting at 90K according to uBlock Origin.
- hungryfoolish 7y ago>And it turns out 50K rules is actually fine! No its not. Plus, if you combine Easylist with a bunch of additional filter lists, then it very easily crosses 50k.