cxr

14 ms·

181.
by cxr 8mo ago
The comment you're responding to is obnoxious, but authoring in Google Docs and exporting to HTML+CSS would be viable and is 10x more accessible than the simultaneously over- and underengineered toolchains and work practices that the p
182.
by cxr 8mo ago
> comments like these one you are responding That's my comment.
183.
by cxr 8mo ago
Licensing concerns resulted in DjVu being originally preferred over PDF by archive.org and WMF projects like Wikipedia. With baseline PDF now being unencumbered and the widespread existence of FOSS readers, PDF is both the de jure and de f
184.
by cxr 8mo ago
Replying to this comment because though it's vague in specifics it reads as authoritative and knowledgeable. In reality, it confuses/conflates multiple things. Serving HTML source as text/plain is safe. No browser capable o
185.
by cxr 8mo ago
What's an algorithm?
186.
by cxr 8mo ago
That's not even close to what "wiki" means. Couldn't you have spent two seconds looking up the term that you're using (a community-owned content/knowledge graph that's "collaboratively edited and man
187.
by cxr 8mo ago
Why're "wiki"? Where wiki?
188.
by cxr 8mo ago
My problem with IIIF is that every JS library that implements a browser-based viewer should have a button in the viewer UI that lets you point to your profile so you can load your preferred viewer in-place rather than use whichever plugin
189.
by cxr 8mo ago
For someone choosing to be so obnoxiously condescending, you are excruciatingly stupid.
190.
by cxr 8mo ago
I'd ask who you think you have me confused for or where you got that quote from, but I know how little it matters insofar as getting you to recognize whatever delusion led to your comment.
191.
by cxr 8mo ago
Nice try. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwUswWA7cRc >
192.
by cxr 8mo ago
In the first place, no one said they needed to, only that they probably did. Secondly, it's not "3000 extensions". They didn't somehow magically divine that the 2953 (+/-47) extensions we see here were the ones tha
193.
by cxr 8mo ago
> I don't buy the argument that "plain text over the web is the future" Good thing no one is making that argument. That's a fabricated quote. > the second most used 'app' on a PC/laptop after a b
194.
by cxr 8mo ago
That extension cannot be fingerprinted by its content-accessible resources. It doesn't declare any in its manifest.
195.
by cxr 8mo ago
That's a different form of defense. The original claim in this thread was that LinkedIn's fingerprinting implementation was making cross-site requests to Chrome Web Store, and that they were reading back the response of those req
196.
by cxr 8mo ago
> I suggest everyone take a look at the list of extensions and their names for some very important context[…] I didn't find popular extensions like uBlock Unsurprising outcome since uBlock (specifically: uBlock Origin Lite, the only
197.
by cxr 8mo ago
Not interested. You also shouldn't have done that. You broke the thread—exactly what HN's no-deleting-comments-that-have-replies check was created to prevent. Consider this: just stop being reckless.
198.
by cxr 8mo ago
Wrong again. (PS: The fact that you have now replied—which automatically disables comment deletion—is the only thing that prevented my removing it just now. So great job.)
199.
by cxr 8mo ago
It does by default, except for the files from the extension that the extension author has explicitly designated as content-accessible. It's explained ("Using web_accessible_resources") at the other end of the link.
200.
by cxr 8mo ago
"The code" here you're referring to (fetch_extension_names.js[1]) isn't and doesn't claim to be LinkedIn's fingerprinting code. It's a scraper that the researcher behind this repo wrote themselves in orde
201.
by cxr 8mo ago
In order to create the data source that LinkedIn's extension-fingerprinting relies on to work, someone (at LinkedIn*?) almost certainly violated the Chrome Web Store TOS—by (perversely*) scraping it. * if LinkedIn didn't get it fr
202.
by cxr 8mo ago
It's not true. The person you're responding to has a habit of posting implausible-but-plausibly-plausible nonsense, and it's not how this works at all.
203.
by cxr 8mo ago
It doesn't work. The person who posted the comment you're responding to has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. He confabulated the entire explanation based on a single misunderstood block of code that contains the
204.
by cxr 8mo ago
> the charter of projects like LibreOffice are fundamentally broken—they're aiming to replace Microsoft Office by cloning it, but Microsoft Office itself is part of a busted paradigm < https://news.ycombinator.com&#x2
205.
by cxr 9mo ago
> Typescript is moving to go because you just cannot get performance out of javascript because of its design. That's not an accurate summary. An accurate summary is that: - They can't get the performance they want out of V8 -
206.
by cxr 9mo ago
Jeff? Mr. Kaufman? Sir…?
207.
by cxr 9mo ago
It's truly perverse that, at the same time that desktop systems are trying to lock down what trusted, conventional native apps can and cannot do and/or access, you have the Chrome team pushing out proposals to expand what browsers
208.
by cxr 9mo ago
> It's open source and built with Firebase for auth and data sync. Consider also supporting remoteStorage < http://remotestorage.org/ >, both so that you don't have to operate (admin/provision/wha
209.
by cxr 9mo ago
< https://web.archive.org/web/20120601101804/https://blog.mozi... > < https://sites.coecis.cornell.edu/leshed/files/2015/12/coscri... > < https:/&#x2F
210.
by cxr 9mo ago
> It really only works if you primarily work in a single monorepo. That's simply not true; it doesn't come down to "monorepo-or-not?" It comes down to whether or not the code size of an app's dependencies and tra

More ›