4 ms·
> One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag. No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. > Patched faster and more
by derleth 14y ago
> One should really do a cursory search before throwing the citation flag.
No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it.
> Patched faster and more often than others
Not necessarily a good thing. Also doesn't really help people off of Google's forced-update scheme.
Also, plugins are an important part of any browser now; NoScript and the ad blocking/anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox.
- quadhome 14y ago> No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. Cite, please.
- alecthomas 14y agoThis is true IIRC, or at least, was. Chrome extensions can only hook in to the DOM after it has been evaluated. You can see this occasionally with Adblock when ads flicker in briefly.
- chris_wot 14y agoAs the creator of [citation needed], I refute this. There is no need for someone to believe a claim from a particular source if there is no citation involved. It is indeed up to the author to provide the citation. However, should someone else provide a citation, then this will also do - and the author should really thank that person for doing the hard work in providing a more meaningful discussion.
- JonAtkinson 14y ago> the ad-blocking and anti-tracking tools work better on Firefox Cite, please.
- Karunamon 14y ago>No, it's up to the people making the claim to defend it. Perhaps, but it adds much more to the discussion and comes across as less prickish if you say something along the lines of "I don't see any data to support that, could I see yours?" rather than "Citeplz". Especially when it's literally one google search away on result #1. It just smacks of laziness. And while I agree with you on plugins, we're talking security. I was going by the study's methodology (which seems mostly sound).