It was very bad, Chris. It was very, very, bad.
-
-
I bet if someone dropped the author an email they'd be happy to correct their piece. If only we knew an executive who had strong opinions about things...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah, no, seriously: drop the article author a note if you think we've screwed up. Snark is one thing, but facts matter the most.
1 reply 0 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @TheRegister @mikewest and
I'm also curious what's wrong with the article. The talk of fixing perf. using a Promise-based API is questionable, and the 1-sided speculation about Google's motives is...1-sided speculation. But, overall it seems consistent w/ my understanding of the mailing list thread.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @TheRegister and
(FWIW, uBlock Origin w/ Google Chrome is my primary browser and I am biased towards uBlock Origin working well. I think its author is being fair. I think Google has good security-related reasons for changing things but I think more can be done to accommodate uBlock Origin users.)
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @TheRegister and
OK, I have to admit my mistake: "fair" is not a fair characterization of his non-technical comments.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @TheRegister and
Pretty much. The headline is objectively just not true, and the main thread of the article is wild leaps and unsupported opinions. There's no shortage of inaccuracies and technical errors, but I'd normally just let those go were it not for the editorial tone they're attached to.
2 replies 4 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @justinschuh @BRIAN_____ and
And yeah, Chrome does let sysadmins manage things beyond user-facing settings (without paying anyone anything!). That's because enterprises have complex needs and admins responsible for assessing security, privacy, and perf tradeoffs that we can't foist on the average user.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @justinschuh @BRIAN_____ and
Then there's the uBlock Origin arguments. The big problem with webRequest is unfixable privacy and security holes. They ignored that to solely argue perf, but then ignored the biggest perf cost of every webRequest extension stacking a full renderer process, blocking IPC, etc.
10 replies 3 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @justinschuh @BRIAN_____ and
Hi Justin. I will acknowledge security risks from extensions. However, If you are going to prevent ublock from working for security reasons, surely it is easy enough to add first class rule based filtering to chrome/chromium? Ad networks are also a significant security risk
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
That's what `declarativeNetRequest` *is*: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/declarativeNetRequest …
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @wottow and
The Register Retweeted R. Hill
FWIW, since you're interested in feedback...https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1134127701583904770 …
The Register added,
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @TheRegister @slightlylate and
Kinda interesting how all lines of questioning in this thread and elsewhere end up in silence and/or "trust us we have good intentions". While most arguments about "performance" and "security" are just empty words, which is a remarkable for a data-driven company.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.