My colleagues having a chat about their favourite tv shows in the operations channel at 7am have entered the chat.

I know, but those techniques are more likely to cause selection weirdness than flexbox/etc, which is why I mention them specifically.

On mobile: multiple top and bottom tool/nav bars that automatically show/hide themselves when you scroll. They’re invariably more irritating than if they were just pinned at the top of the page (or perhaps viewport, but ideally page - I can scroll to the top of I want it back)

On desktop: animations tied to scrolling.

Anywhere: any kind of popup, modal, etc that I didn’t click on something to get. Please fuck alllllllll the way off.

The browser implements the text selection behaviour, but how infuriating it is depends on how convoluted your page construction is.

On a simple page with no floats, overlaid elements, negative margins, absolute positioning, hidden stuff, and other css layout tomfoolery, it’s perfectly predictable. It’s only when designers do designer things does it start to break down.

“Winning” is like making it to max level in a mmorpg. It’s not the end but it is the beginning of the endgame.

Best of luck with that.

Gimme dat blowhole mod

If you’re making a mil a year in revenue there’s a good chance your profit margin is tiny and licensing fees could obliterate it.

Omg they’re going to get n-bombed by a 12 year old to death!

I am not sure how Manifest V3 is relevant here?

Because they literally tout security as one of the primary reasons for forcing it onto people.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/

The first line is “A step in the direction of security, privacy, and performance.”

https://developer.chrome.com/blog/mv2-transition/

“Manifest V3 is more secure, performant, and privacy-preserving than its predecessor.”

It’s the first thing they say.

If it doesn’t prevent a malicious extension from lifting your password in perhaps the most dumb and naive way I can think of, then it seems fairly disingenuous to describe it as “secure”.

They use data, just not the data from the customers paying them for enterprise licenses.

Honestly fear of leaking customer data is the only thing that’s kept my work from spunking every single byte of data we have at some LLM service a lazy attempt to come up with a product they can sell with minimal effort. They’re gonna love this shit.

Wow.

He looks like a plastic bag full of porridge with hair plugs.

Doing the lord’s work

Holy shit that’s too real. I come here to get away from work!

Fair enough. But devil’s advocate: presumably they’re still selling it there at a profit?

I mean there a number of big publishers who don’t seem to give two fucks about their image if there’s profit in it…

Ok. So. That doesn’t seem so bad to me.

I do not understand why publishers don’t cancel the keys. Why do they allow that parasitic industry to exist? Surely they know which key corresponds to a chargeback?

Lossless compression algorithms aren’t magical, they can’t make everything smaller (otherwise it would be possible to have two different bits of input data that compress to the same output). So they all make some data bigger and some data smaller, the trick is that the stuff they make smaller happens to match common patterns. Given truly random data, basically every lossless compression algorithm will make the data larger.

A good encryption algorithm will output data that’s effectively indistinguishable from randomness. It’s not the only consideration, but often the more random the output looks, the better the algorithm.

Put those two facts together and it’s pretty easy to see why you should compress first then encrypt.

Ok so it’s my fault that now someone at Intel knows how much porn I look at because I clicked “next” on a beta driver?