Continuing to work on Tab Wrangler, an extension for both Chrome and Firefox that has been available and open source for 10+ years. It auto-closes tabs when they have not been active for a configurable amount of time, similar to the feature built into Mobile Safari but more configurable.
I have been maintaining it and in the past few months added features that had been requested for a long time.
> Why must I pay monthly for gigabytes of storage to backup my iphone when a single $30 hard drive could do it?
This is “I could build that in a weekend” mentality. Your data on iCloud is replicated, available via the internet, available 99.99% of the time, etc. If your $30 hard drive fails you lose everything.
The price and being able to use other services is worth debating, but comparing it to “a single $30 hard drive” is disingenuous.
My backup is also replicated. Once on my hard drive and once on my phone. Secondly, it’s apple’s job to build this feature. I’m not talking about why I do or do not do it myself. I’m talking about why apple doesn’t make it, which is because they want me to pay monthly to hold data that I may never actually access.
Third, apple did build this feature, but it has become a neglected second class citizen. You can do backups to a mac, but the experience is clearly neglected.
Alex Russell introduced Web Components in 2011. React was released in 2013.
Web Components originally used a view-model architecture, which I would guess was heavily inspired by the most popular JS framework leading up to 2011: Backbone.
React was a massive departure from Backbone, and sadly the Web Components spec was developed before React had matured and changed the landscape.
It describes the standard model, what the LHC was able to find, what it hasn’t been able to find, and why there is skepticism about further discoveries. This is some high quality clickbait.
“In the past decade, every branch of the U.S. military has begun to phase out sit-ups and crunches from their required testing and training regimens, or else they have made them optional, alongside more orthopedically sound maneuvers such as the plank.”
Chrome’s Profiles are the #1 reason I use it over Firefox. If Firefox had as complete of an implementation as Chrome then I would consider switching, but until then Firefox is a non-starter for me.
I use all 3 of these profiles all day every day for work:
* one personal profile logged into personal Google
* one work profile managed by the company, logged into company Google
* one development profile with all the debugging extensions installed, like React and Redux tools (they require access to all pages all the time)
I would imagine huge number of non-technical users share a computer and want their own chrome profiles so that they can access their own emails without signing out of their family members. I know my middle-aged parents use Chrome in this way for example, and it would be a blocker for switching them to Firefox.
Is this basically a use case where they don't want to create separate Windows users for some reason, but still would want their own private space in the browser?
With containers you can. It's literally opening a new tab.
If you have two profiles open at the same time like described you can easily switch desktops. The clear seperation of work and private browsing sessions helps me as well.
What is easy here? In Chrome, on macOS, it's command-` to switch windows and command-shift-m to open a new window in with a specific profile.
Also, links always open in the profile that is currently in the foreground. Is that possible in Firefox? Last I heard it isn't, but I haven't checked in a while.
Yes, there is but I don't know if it works for macOS since it works for me in Windows.
Set the profile you prefer to open for links as a default profile and make sure to tick the option to automatically use the default profile without opening the profile manager. Then for the second profile, you need to use the shortcuts for that with the argument like this
firefox.exe -P "<profile_name>"
And make sure you leave it as capitalized P, I believe that is the argument. Then apply the setting and click the shortcut. It should be opening links to the default profile that you set in the profile manager.
I use Firefox's container tabs all the time, which segment exactly the same way as profiles (albiet with the same extension pool). Personally I prefer having blended tabs in a single window, or having additional segregation; I keep Amazon punted out to it's own container, as well as social media. I know it won't stop all the cross-identificaiton, but it should at least help.
In Chrome there's an icon you click to switch. Honestly, if someone would create a FF extension that was just that, it would probably cover 90% of what's considered superior in Chrome.
have you used container tabs? those are effectively "different profiles" for what most people consider them. It's still shared extensions and history and bookmarks but you can login with different accounts in different tabs and it keeps that separate.
I use container tabs, temporary tabs and the containerise extension to help manage things. I use it so there's stronger isolation between the websites I visit, and cookies are cleaned up when I close the browser.
That's on my main/personal profile.
I have separate profiles for work stuff, one for each client or organisation I work with. On those, I only access sites that are relevant to the organisation, and I have a lot fewer protections. I keep long sessions, I leave cookies in place, etc. It's a lot more convenient that way.
An important UX difference is that Firefox's default "New Tab" keyboard shortcut doesn't respect the container of the current tab. I've found that it's really easy to accidentally switch back to the main container.
about:profiles looks like a debugging page, not something you use for launching a profile. And I'm not referring to its aspect, but usability. It's not made to be used daily.
I'll have to see if it can be "designed" with userChrome.css or something and I'll give it a try.
The only thing I can think of is that the UI is not as nice as chromes for switching? in chrome you can switch the profile from a menu option and there can be more than one profile active at a time with separate everything including extensions and bookmarks.
in firefox you don't get that easy switch and I am not sure the gui for the profiles is enabled by default. you have to manually start up firefox with a -P flag from the command line to get the profile manager. And you only get one profile active at a time.
This isn't true. As I'm writing this, I have three Firefox windows open, each in a different profile. What makes you think you can only have one profile active at a time?
were there any hoops you had to run to get that to work? afaict that's not possible ootb without adding a flag to the command line. I'll admit that I haven't really tried it since many years ago.
for 90% of the users out there that we need to convince to use firefox: having a command line switch is about the same as not having the feature at all... chrome has a menu item that brings up a brand new window in that profile.
I want firefox to succeed and it's my daily driver.
You do have to use the command-line and there is a single hoop: the `--new-instance` flag. I agree the situation could be made "normal" user friendly and it isn't right now.
When I open Chrome, I can open any profile straight away from the menu. On Mac, there’s just one Chrome icon.
When I open Firefox, I have to go to a page that looks like a developer debug mode, and then open a new profile in a new Firefox instance. I now have two Firefox icons in my dock. I normally work with three profiles, so now I have three Firefox icons in my dock all called Firefox. 66.6% of the time I press the wrong one.
The problem is that Firefox has to be at least as good as Chrome to succeed. Being _almost_ as good as Chrome means people will just use Chrome.
It doesn’t sync your entire experience. I have a completely different setup for each profile, and then I use Containers _within_ each profile. They’re not the same thing.
Locking your laptop to a table in a cafe doesn't seem like something most folks would do. Working in a cafe was the use case I imagined when I saw this.
LaGuardia in NYC requires transferring to a bus for the final connection from the subway to the airport. It’s infuriatingly difficult to get right even after doing the route many times. I’d often call a Lyft/Uber at 10x the price of the subway+bus because the public transit route is that annoying to deal with.
It’s a little better than it used to be with at least dedicated buses to Woodside and Jackson Heights instead of having to take some random local Queens bus. Still bad though, and Cuomo’s AirTrain route is beyond stupid.
JFK’s story isn’t great, Jamaica and the LIRR aren’t designed for tourists, but it’s much better than LGA.
They're not designed for tourists, and Penn Station has all the ambience of a shoebox, but at least the connection from AirTrain to LIRR is seamless; find out which platform has the first train departing from Penn (always something around) and then take 1 elevator. You'll have to stand near the door with your lugggage though.
The real issue is that tourists just go "oh I should use the subway", partially because the LIRR doesn't obviously say it's going to Manhattan in the Jamaica terminal, partially because people are way more familiar with the subway, and partially because the fare is much lower (~$7 lower during peak hours). That connection is bad.
When I had to go to NYC for work a lot I always flew into Newark and did the train from there. That was nice, worked out nicely, including the flight from Toronto island airport, very smooth. Was a bit shocked the first time I flew LaGuardia at what a pain that was.
The collateral required by Robinhood’s clearing house to trade these stocks was raised to 100%, and it takes 2 days for trades to clear. Required collateral for other equities was not raised so there was no reason any other equities needed to be limited.
The title in the screenshot says “Continue search for Office Chairs,” which sounds like it shows recent Google searches that have significant presence in the “Shopping” tab of google.com. Sure these aren’t “ads,” like the article says, but if they are links to Google Shopping then they indirectly generate revenue for Google by sending you back to google.com.
It's sort of like video search results. I search for a question. I get a result that looks like a video and not an ad. I click the link and get taken to YouTube where... an ad plays. And likely generates a higher RPM for Google than a text ad.
* Tab Wrangler for Chrome: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tab-wrangler/egnjhc...
Continuing to work on Tab Wrangler, an extension for both Chrome and Firefox that has been available and open source for 10+ years. It auto-closes tabs when they have not been active for a configurable amount of time, similar to the feature built into Mobile Safari but more configurable.
I have been maintaining it and in the past few months added features that had been requested for a long time.
reply