Apple has perfected their virtue signaling game and all the simps love it.
I don't really mind it either anymore, a lot of people have this hero worship fetish and they can't help painting everything in black and white, even though they're all just different shades of gray.
Apple is definitively brighter on that scale then Google or Meta, but they're all corrupt multinational corporations that will do everything they can get away with to increase their bottom line.
You knowing this, by the tone of your writing, what do YOU do about it? What computer are you working on right now? Are you sure every component on it is legit? I take it you're using some for of Linux because they're not "corrupt" (well, depending on what distro as even that is a big debate).
I tried that a few times, but by the time I've explained enough for the code to be close to what I want i could've just implemented it myself twice over... And that's ignoring the fact that it's always generating subtly wrong or just poorly performing code.
It might change eventually as ide integrations improve, but for now it's a novelty for me.
If that was true, then why are there movies/series created solely for streaming providers?
It can't be there sole reason, and I sincerely doubt it's even true. Sure, the price of a single DVD would've covered the price of 1-2 months of streaming on Netflix, but people didn't buy a DVD each month. And if they did, they lent it to friends after.
Some bought the movie, others rented the movie, and others just waited for it to show up on their cable subscription where they paid 100-150/mo for. Not it is just 20/mo and whatever the box is.
<body>
<div><!-- you want this one -->
ok
<div id="the-child"></div>
</div>
<div><!-- you dont want this one -->
nok
<div id="the-wrong-child"></div>
</div>
</body>
css:
div:has( > #the-child)
xpath:
//div[@id="the-child"]/..
isnt that kinda the same? I think I'd even consider the css version to be easier to understand at a glance.
If you've got full control over the Dom it'd be much better to just set an id attribute on the element in question though, as getElementById is still the best performing option
Because HTML's on* attributes are not generic, they are hardcoded in the spec, you can't use them to handle arbitrary events. hx-on is an attempt to fill this gap for simple cases, when managing event listeners manually or resorting to _hyperscript or alpine is too much
> it addresses a specific shortcoming of HTML: the on* attributes do not support arbitrary events
> it is much less featureful & useful than, for example, @Alpine_JS, but if you have very basic needs for event handling it can help avoid another dependency
It's always surprising to me when I hear people using the brave browser... It's by a company that initially tried to replace their blocked ads with their own "safe and non-intrusive" ads as far as I remember, until they backpaddled because of the outrage.
It's also a for-profit company and you're not the customer, as you're not paying them money.
I'd be way more worried how they're using the data they're collecting on you vs Google or MS
People still like to defend Brave when it gets caught on shady things over and over again. I guess there are no too many other options. For some people it is already too difficult to install uBlock or know its existence.
BAT gives like no money, especially after the crypto crash. Its far more likely its just the browser wars of old, but with even less options to choose from people are going to be more adamant their choice is the best.
I do not use BAT or any crypto. Brave just works, and it blocks ads automatically when I tell friends to install it on their computers.
I used to recommend Firefox, but Mozilla has totally jumped the shark (privacy violations [multiple], wastes too much money, blocks APIs that are useful with no real security risks while approving APIs with little use that do have security risks, etc, very user hostile).
Chromium is obviously not trustworthy at this point, let alone Chrome. So that leaves like, Safari and Opera?
Brendan Eich is the CEO of Brave, and I trust him. Mozilla was good until he was ousted for political reasons.
Right, I should have said "the main Chromium branch is obviously not trustworthy". It is possible to remove the untrustworthy bits, however, and there are a variety of de-googled Chromium builds.
Chromium is a great browser, unfortunately the official branch has been poisoned by Google.
What net gain does each of these companies provide over skinning chromium that isn't in Firefox?
Last time I asked brave fanboys why they don't redskin Firefox and the response was "Firefox is pita to build" all the while we have projects like palemoon and waterfox that are hobby projects. If they can work with firefox, so could someone else but no
Mullvad is actually a Firefox fork and it directly uses Tor's privacy enhancements[0] to Firefox for a private web browsing experience. As a matter of fact, it really looks like Tor Browser but with a VPN baked in instead of Tor.
Uh. "cropping up like ants" is definitely a take. Not a good one, as most the browsers here had their first release date of 199*. I will list them out.
Mullvad, is the Tor Browser with the Mullvad VPN included, and released 2023. However, the Tor Browser, which it effectively is, is from 2002.
Brave, the one in this article, is from 2019.
Opera is from 1994.
Vivaldi is from 2015, and is developed by Opera's previous dev-team after a bad sale to a Chinese company.
Microsoft's first browser, Internet Explorer, is from 1995.
I can not comment about Zoho's browser, as i know little about it.
Have you worked in any project that required a forked browser?
I did. When we folded less than two years later, one of the CTOs biggest stated regrets was that he went with
Firefox instead of Chromium. The extension story in Firefox was easily 10x harder. Interfacing with the OS as well. Getting dbus services to work was a fool's errand.
> palemoon and waterfox seem to be running just fine.
GNU/Hurd is also a very interesting alternative OS, the design is a lot more elegant than GNU/Linux, it's still under active development and it has a surprising number of active users.
It's still a very bad idea to build the foundation of your tech stack on it.
True, right now lots of folks from the original Opera team (including CEO) work on Vivaldi. If one day Mozilla forces me to ditch Firefox, I will probably switch to this browser.
You are a victim of the Mandella effect. There never was anything related to replacing ads in-page, yet if you ask all detractors what they don't like about it, that's the first point they bring up.
Correct. I've been using Brave since their very first versions on the desktop, and there never was any in-page ad insertion.
The one type of in-page modification they used to do is that they would add a "tip" button to the content creator of some social networks like Twitter or reddit. That had nothing to do with "replacing ads" though.
> replaces an ad, they put the new ad in a popup
Incorrect. There is no 1:1 replacement. You as the user can define how often you want to receive notifications, and even then the notifications only come when you are switching context between any action. It won't interrupt you while you are watching a video, working on google doc spreadsheet or reading though HN.
That's not how it works. If you turn on Brave ads, they show up every once in a while, completely independently of webpage ads. And they work whether your ad blocker is on or off.
Every time this comes up, the argument is the same. People always forget:
- The ad blocker works separately from their own ad service.
- Their own ads are opt-in.
- People receive 70% of the revenue from the ads they see.
- The ads from Brave do not track you and whatever personalisation happens in-device, no data is mined.
So, no. They are not "replacing" anything. They are not stealing anyone's revenue (and no matter how much Linus from LTT argues, he is not entitled to any revenue just because I watched any of his videos) and Brave's own ads are from deals that they closed themselves and a essentially fraud-proof compared with whatever payouts are given by largest ad networks.
In other words, they are just offering something that happens to be infinitely more user-focused than the status quo. Every attempt at framing this as unethical came from an uninformed or biased source.
I think some initial news articles claimed this and everyone went with it. Which is basically how it worked, replacing ads, but in a different way, and actually more annoying.. block everyone else's ads...and have their own little popup ads, and if you enabled that, you'd get paid in BAT tokens per view too.
As a detractor and therefore a part of the set "all detractors", I do not believe this. I just don't buy their shady marketing and try not to support engine monoculture.
> I'd be way more worried how they're using the data they're collecting on you vs Google or MS
Why? They don't even have access to my emails and texts like those other companies do. I also don't see the names of their top executives and founders showing up in articles about connections to Jeffrey Epstein every few months.
You state this as a fact, but it's actually much less certain wherever it's ever been net-positive.
It was probably intended that way, but the reality is that the power has been with the publisher since the beginning, and they've absolutly been screwing over the author's as well. Only the most successful author's have gotten decent deals.
I don't have an answer to this either though, i just wanted to point out that copyright has arguably never been successful at getting money to the content creators proportional to the value the Publisher extracted from the work either.
The only way you’d know is to A/B test with a country with no copyright, and see how their authors get by.
My guess is extremely poorly. Again, the biggest might be fine. Instead of publishers paying fairly little to authors they could just literally take the best books and print them, taking all of the profits…not to mention ebooks.
I’m not an author so I can’t speak to how much publishers make, but I’d assume that if one was way better than the others in how much they’re distribute to authors all of the best authors would jump ship. Markets have a way of working things out.
A lot of people want to be authors, and any time that happens - game dev, teachers, musicians, etc. - you’re going to take on a bit of extra hardship compared to other jobs.
I'm not saying that it would be better for authors without copyright. That would indeed be hard to ascertain without a/b testing.
My point was that it doesn't improve their lives, and that's much easier to check in isolation just by reading the news about the current writers strike and how the industry just ignores it until fall, expecting their savings to run out.
Really, copyright just doesn't give the content creators any meaningful power as this right is generally owned by the industry/publisher, not the authors.
Leadership matters, Apples history is a prime example of this as shown by first faltering without Steve Jobs and then becoming the most profitable company after he rejoined.
Nonetheless, you're still attributing way too much to the ability of the leadership. After all, that story is so remarkable precisely because it's pretty much the only well known example of this.
I don't really mind it either anymore, a lot of people have this hero worship fetish and they can't help painting everything in black and white, even though they're all just different shades of gray.
Apple is definitively brighter on that scale then Google or Meta, but they're all corrupt multinational corporations that will do everything they can get away with to increase their bottom line.