gorhill

8 ms·

31.
by gorhill 3y ago
I didn't turn over the extension in the Chrome Webstore, I always have been the owner of it since I first published uBlock in June 2014.
32.
by gorhill 3y ago
> a twitter thread that I have been trying to dig up https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871245021220875
33.
by gorhill 3y ago
To turn your browser (an agent acting on your behalf) into a proprietary application (an agent acting on behalf of a website) -- i.e. the equivalent of forcing you to install a proprietary application in order to visit a website.
34.
by gorhill 3y ago
Extensions can have a measurable effect on the benchmark, be sure both browsers have no extension, or the same extensions with the same configuration.
35.
by gorhill 3y ago
My understanding: Global warming occurs because the previous equilibrium between incoming and outgoing energy has been broken by changes in the composition of the atmosphere. So until we reach a new equilibrium long after the atmosphere com
36.
by gorhill 3y ago
Sorting works fine on my side when using uBlock Origin with default settings and default filter lists. You might have customized uBO beyond default settings/lists, and this is causing your issue. If you think this is a filter issue in
37.
by gorhill 3y ago
There is an option to block media elements larger than a set size[1]. When a media element is blocked through this setting, the element is replaced with a click-to-load widget, so the layout shouldn't change with this option. [1] http
38.
by gorhill 3y ago
They require to provide all the details of how the code was minified/bundled so that they probably try to reproduce the resulting code on their side, and if there is a mismatch you will not pass review.
39.
by gorhill 4y ago
Yes, same browser since uBO just uses the `browser.storage.sync` API.[1] The sync storage is quite limited but uBO compresses the data to make the most of the limited storage. * * * [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US&#x
40.
by gorhill 4y ago
> I don't think it's possible with filters We constantly create filters for detection issues[1]. Filter list maintainers have a lot of experience on how to work around such issues, with solutions that are often not obvious to p
41.
by gorhill 4y ago
By default we defuse such anti-blocker. If it happens, it's just a matter of reporting it to filter list maintainers. The more people report issues, the better the default filter lists get. Also, a common cause of such anti-blocker wal
42.
by gorhill 4y ago
This is an auxiliary tool, it does not affect uBO's efficiency when not using the auxiliary tools (logger, viewers, etc.) You won't find a leaner content blocker than uBO CPU- and memory-wise, by quite a good margin, and this new
43.
by gorhill 4y ago
> It may or may not have been a bad choice It was a necessary choice, the previous framework for extensions was not multiprocess-compatible.
44.
by gorhill 4y ago
Using other blockers along uBO leads to worse results than using uBO alone -- and this may be why you have some sites still showing warnings about blockers. I have been warning people against using other content blockers along uBO since a l
45.
by gorhill 4y ago
By default we try to work around sites which require that the user disable their content blocker, as this is not acceptable since content blockers are used for more than to just block advertisement. In uBO, trackers and malware sites are
46.
by gorhill 4y ago
My experience is that the language-pair packs are downloaded on demand once, not "repeatedly".
47.
by gorhill 4y ago
There is a "Report site issue..." entry in Firefox's hamburger menu, under "Help", which leads to < https://webcompat.com/issues/new >. This is really the best way to help Firefox with comp
48.
by gorhill 4y ago
EasyList Cookie already contains a section to address this, using uBO syntax.[1] Best is to report such instances to EasyList maintainers so that a fix will benefit everybody using the list. * * * [1] https://github.com/easy
49.
by gorhill 4y ago
Firefox adopted the `scripting` API and made it available for MV2 extensions: > This API is available in Manifest V3 or higher in Chrome and Firefox 101. In Safari and Firefox 102+, this API is also available in Manifest V2. When I say,
50.
by gorhill 4y ago
No well-known content blocker "process about 90,000 regexps" to find out whether a resource needs to be blocked or not, that's just not how it works internally. Last time I ran benchmarks of all well-known content blockers us
51.
by gorhill 4y ago
It looks like it's being worked on, see < https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/279 >.
52.
by gorhill 4y ago
> 99.9% of people with adblockers installed never ever touch those [advanced features] Custom matching algorithms and ability to fine tune or expand matching algorithms according to new content blocking challenges are actually a kind of
53.
by gorhill 4y ago
> Is this speculation or has there actually been an analysis of how many ads are unblockable? You could go through all the issues that are solved on a daily basis by filter list maintainers and see how your content blocker deals with tho
54.
by gorhill 4y ago
> I'm still worried that without an MV3-compatible version of full uBlock Origin, users are still going to assume that "MV3 means that ad blockers are broken". They currently are when compared to their MV2 counterpart. The
55.
by gorhill 4y ago
> How is DNR "not flexible" enough here? DNR does not allow uBO's _Block media elements larger than [x] KB_[1]. DNR does not allow to know which network request was blocked by what rule. To do so requires the `declarativeN
56.
by gorhill 4y ago
> removed it yourself for absolutely no reason I clearly stated the reason: to avoid having to require broad "read/modify data on all websites" permission. I purposefully decided to create a permission-less version of uBO
57.
by gorhill 4y ago
It can never be "plus" compared to what uBO is currently with MV2, there are features and capabilities that can't be ported to MV3.
58.
by gorhill 4y ago
> the "read/modify data" permission isn't getting removed by MV3? The stated reason for the removal of the blocking webRequest API was to avoid broad permissions to read/modify data on all websites in the name of
59.
by gorhill 4y ago
One of the stated goal of MV3 by Google[1] was to avoid extensions with broad permissions: > our new declarativeNetRequest API is designed to be a privacy-preserving method for extensions to block network requests without needing access
60.
by gorhill 4y ago
> same requests sent to Google Analytics but with a different hostname There are instructions out there to also modify the path of the requests[1]. Consider this paragraph in the Summary section: > Cynics could say that this is an imp

More ›