In my recent experience: definitely yes, though not significantly worse. Unless you have [many] hundreds of tabs open (which I do as I have neither executive function nor organisational skills), or have a machine with very limited RAM, I don't think you'll notice a difference.
This is anecdata, of course, take with a pinch of your preferred flavouring powder.
Chrome on Windows is running with thousands of tabs "open" over dozens of windows, but it does practically max out on a certain number of tabs per window (not just the GUI, but something in the memory architecture), and it does stack fat cache which will crash the whole thing if it digs deeper than your available space.
Windows even runs (semi-playably) 2020's shooters in this condition, though you need to kill any windows close to the tab limit that are full of recently opened tabs.
> Chrome also came in at slightly lower memory consumption across all the benchmarks with total memory usage on average at 4.67GB to Firefox at 4.83GB.
Thats good to know, but I am a "out of the box" person. I never want to have to manually install extensions as thats just more stuff to remember when setting up a new machine. Yea thats a me problem, but still.
It used to support it out-of-the-box as well, but it's technically against YouTube's ToS to allow this without paying for a premium, so now you need this as an extra hoop.
Agreed, this sounds strange indeed. Much more likely is that Google found a reliable way to detect the screen status using a standard feature and Mozilla just implements the standard neutrally
Wouldn't know, as I have never been in charge of one, but I imagine Google having the power to make your browser completely irrelevant would be a pretty strong incentive.
Nah I want general media playback in the background. Doesn't matter if its Youtube or any other platform. I dont want giga corpos to monetize my attention. Youtube does well enough from ads anyway ;)
Even youtube's app itself doesn't allow that unless you pay. I suspect they've nobbled most browsers into not allowing it, either by technical measures or (more likely) the strong-arm tactic of saying “if you don't block this we'll find a way to make the entire of youtube practically unusable on your browser”.
I've been using Grayjay recently which does allow that, amongst a number of other useful features (integrating other media sources, lack of adverts every few minutes in some content). Might be worth considering as an option.
I used ublock origin for a while, but I kept having issues with it on Youtube due to Youtubes anti adblock measurements. Brave for some reason always had a fix for it pretty quickly, so I never experienced these issues with it. Maybe I could try a different browser again on my next machine.
In iOS kinda yes; you have to request desktop version, and once you activate the lock screen for the first time you have to press “play”. Then it just plays and auto plays in the background.
Don’t know about android, but there is also an extension there that blocks the visibility page api for YouTube.
> Yeah, so, to be clear: I'm fairly sure Linux will also have its fair share of issues that I occasionally would have to repair.
Issues with account, login and passwords would be none of them. Sure, there are other areas of common issues at times, but I have never, ever had issues logging into any of the linux OS I ran for the last 23years or so.
I've had PAM break due to distro's ridiculous policy of updating the system in place allowing for invalid combinations of files to exist. I've had Linux distros break the booting process countless times.
I'm guessing it's not trivial to fix without breaking other things? The weakness seems to be that anyone can turn UUIDs into details like email. But I assume this functionality is necessary for other flows so they can't just turn off all UUID->email/profile look ups. And similarly hiding author UUIDs on posts also isn't trivial.
Conceptually, I agree it should be easy, but I suspect they're stuck with legacy code and behaviors that rely on the current system. Not breaking anything else while fixing this is likely the time consuming part.
But a user's email isn't always forbidden. The API endpoint which turns UUIDs into a user email presumably also has use cases where you do want to expose the user email. For example, when seeing a list of people you've already invited via email to collaborate with, or listing users within your organization, etc. So a user's email isn't always forbidden PII, it depends on the context.
The trouble is the UUID->email endpoint has no idea what the context is and that endpoint alone can't decide if it should expose email or not. And then public Notion docs publicly expose author UUIDs.
Their mistake was architecting things this way. From day 1 they should have cleanly separated public identifiers from privileged ones. Or have more bespoke endpoints for looking up a UUID's email for each of the narrow contexts in which this is allowed. They didn't do this, and they certainly should have, but fixing this mess is likely a non-trivial amount of work. Though I bet it could be done immediately if they really cared and didn't mind other things breaking.
I'm absolutely not defending their choice to expose emails in this way. They should have addressed this years ago when it was first reported, and I want them shamed for failing to care. But just trying to say it's likely not a one line fix.
You literally don’t know that. Add this to the mammoth file titled “HN comments in which the author makes some completely unsubstantiated technical claim”
It literally is easy to fix. For example they could shut down the servers. Which is what they should do immediately if there is no faster fix for a privacy leak like that.
Theres just a higher form of malicious stupidity, where the people who own these platforms can be selectively, maliciously stupid where it comes to security.
The fun fact about PHP is that, there is no Pipeline problem at all. You can serve your scripts the hell you like to do. You can scale as you wish, either with vertical or horizontal. You can use Apache, nginx, etc, no one cares.
Yeah, PHP is very simple to deploy, once you have either apache/nginx/caddy/$webserver and also PHP-cgi/PHP-fpm/$php-backend and also understand unix + permissions + files and a whole lot of other things. Or alternatively, learn how to use cPanel as a user, or worse, learn what (s)FTP is, or whatever the really low end web hosters use nowadays.
I wish others learnt the "boring" way of managing your own servers, setting things up as they should, deploy processes and what not, but realistically, some people just want to run one command/click a button and have it updated, and probably that's for the better too. This Laravel Cloud thing are for those, not for people who want to/know how to run their own servers.
Wouldn't that also share your phones internet connection with the car?
reply