- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I think we need all support we can get to fight Google on this, so I welcome Brave here actually.
Use this link to avoid going to Twitter:
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/BrendanEich/status/1684561924191842304
You must log in or register to comment.
Idk Brave is not a browser, but some crypto processig application. It tries to be more than browser, but I only need browser, so I am not going to use it.
Firefox seem to do the job just fine. <3
You can just turn the crypto stuff off, and the nice thing is when you turn it off it actually respects your decision and actually turns off
Have you used it? If you don’t want you won’t really notice anything crypto outside of the “new tab” screen. Not pushing anything onto the user while browsing. I’m not sure what people are talking about. Yes, you can have wallet there and make an insignificant amount of money by allowing their ads.
I’m not sure what people are talking about.
To me it’s just the principle of the thing. A browser replacing ads with it’s own is just… weird. The idea of being paid to be advertised to just makes me feel yuck.
The thing that comes up over and over is that all the weird stuff is opt-in. “It’s just like firefox, but it has an opt-in homeless person puncher, just in case you ever want that.”
Ordinarily I try to be as “you do you” as I can, but the thing that kinda rubs me the wrong way about Brave is that there’s so many people so loyal to what seems to me to be a bit weird.
Why not be loyal if they dont force anything upon you? The homeless person puncher is very far from accurate comparison. I see 0 ads and pay no money for it
I think you’re missing my point.
I use Firefox, don’t see any ads, and don’t pay any money.
What is the point of brave?
Have you used it?
Yes, I used it and switched to Firefox. Brave had just too much of a “HEY IT’S CRYPTO HERE” sort of UI elements to the point that this whole browser seemed like trash to me.
So I just switched to Firefox and been using it for the past ~1 year or so. Also their fiasco with overwritten URLs so they can make money really helped to push me away.
Isn’t this just marketing? Brave and Vivaldi they already need to spoof chrome user agent or they get blocked in too many websites “you need chrome to enter”
If for example YouTube requires this scummy web attestation then they can say “only supported browsers can login” and there will be no choice because chrome is the biggest share
Yeah. I don’t really see how a browser could just refuse to implement this. The few sites that make up 99% of the web for most people would just stop working.
I just don’t trust Brave very much. They’re doing ok now but eventually they’ve got to make some money. Their approach means they have to invest significant effort to porting fixes in chromium over to their forked version, and they can’t drop behind or they’ll have at least security issues. I’m not sure how sustainable it is.
Had been using Brave for 4 years. Switched from it to Firefox after the Google DRM news came out. Firefox is awesome!
If only someone would put the Firefox over the earth like the logo, that would be epic.
Made the same switch on my phone recently.
Make sure to install plugins like ublock origin. Firefox still supports this and a few other plugins on mobile, like Bitwarden etc.
Yep, ublock being available was the thing that made the change possible. Just wish I had my multi account containers but I can live without that on my phone.
I never liked Brave. The whole “allow ads to get awards” thing doesn’t sit right with me. The only adblockers that do that are the ones that are in bed with the ad companies. Firefox with UBlock Origin and NoScript is all you need.
(I mean, there are other good addons for privacy as well, but it’s easy to go down a rabbit hole and next thing you know you have 30 different extensions installed and websites are breaking. Then you have to start disabling things one-by-one until you find the culprit. Setting your security settings in FF to “Strict” and using those two addons should be good enough without going overboard.)
Edit: only thing that sucks about Firefox is that it still doesn’t support HDR and RTX Video Super Resolution yet, so in the meantime I use the “Open in Chromium” browser extension when I’m watching videos on YouTube, so that they display properly with all the enhancements.
I’m an avid YouTube watcher on Firefox. What does HDR and RTX Video Super Resolution do?
HDR is High Dynamic Range. Makes your monitor more colorful and realistic, closer to what you see in real life. Bright scenes are brighter, colors are more vibrant and accurate (for example, you can actually see teal properly with an HDR monitor, which normal monitors can’t display accurately). Requires a compatible monitor. You would know if you had one cause most people don’t spend extra money on a display unless they know/care about this feature.
RTX Video Super Resolution uses AI to sharpen and upscale lower resolution video. It’s useful for watching 1080p videos on a 4K monitor. Or for watching 720p videos at 1080-quality because your internet sucks and can’t handle 1080p. Requires an Nvidia RTX graphics card (again, you would know if you had one cause they’re expensive and meant for PC gamers).
Basically I’m complaining about features that only enthusiasts care about, but Chrome supports them so why not Firefox too?
Sounds pretty cool! Why is this done at browser level and not at window manager level?
Beats me. ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ That is a good point. Why isn’t this shit done at the window manager level? Fucking Microsoft. Wish I could switch to Linux but it doesn’t even support HDR at all.
Recent Windows 10 and Windows 11 support auto HDR, You can enable HDR in the display settings, and it works for pretty much everything. I’ve never noticed that Firefox lacks native HDR support, because Windows does compensate. The only time it doesn’t is when older games use exclusive fullscreen mode, and then auto-HDR still works as long as I tell them to run in a window and use borderless windowed mode.
it doesn’t even support HDR at all.
That’d explain why I had had never heard about it, lol. Hopefully the Wayland folks are working on it.
I like NoScript exactly for the rabbit hole it opens! Now I’m very aware of what scripts are running on which pages! Actively blocking blatant ad scripts & data scraping scripts makes me feel good.
I’ve been able to sidestep the entire rat race between ublock and Twitch trying to force ads thanks to NoScript. I block amazon-adsystem.com through NoScript, and I haven’t seen a single ad on Twitch in over a decade.
When Google chrome was released in 2008, I read about it in a tech magazine and it described how much it’s going to be spying on you. I was immediately put off by it, and decided not to install it. At the time I wondered why would anyone ever install this junk. Oh boy, was I in for a surprise! Pretty much everyone installed it, and within the next 10 years chrome had become the most popular browser.
Obviously, I never switched from FF.
Hello fellow Firefox lifer. It’s been awesome!
Imagine if everyone started using a browser made by an advertising company, such that they pretty much had complete control of the way we use and view the web.
Better yet, imagine a social gathering place where people are encouraged to share everything about themselves, but the place is actually tun by an advertising company. Oh what, that actually happened.
Yet they still don’t switch to Gecko 🤦, despite Firefox being faster than chrome these days
That’s really not an easy switch to make. It’s not as simple as replacing blink with gecko. If it was, we would see many more gecko based browsers.
I love Firefox, but I’m very skeptical of these results. I want to see them repeated elsewhere.
Partially it’s a license problem. The MPL around gecko is much closer to the GPL than the BSD license that that Chromium blink uses, and thus it’s much less appealing for commercial products to use it.
This sounds awesome. I’ve been trying to switch to Firefox for the past couple years but Chrome’s responsiveness and speed always pulled me back (along with some other issues)
I don’t agree with Brave’s business model, and the shady stuff they did, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Bold claim for a chromium-based browser.
Not really. It’s easy to see exactly where the code is for a new feature by reading the commit history. It shows more or less exactly what to cut out.
And that’s easy to do right now.
But that’s permanent, unfixable, and potentially ever-increasing tech debt they are taking on.
How easy will it be to do when it’s an old feature?
“Permanent, unfixable, and potentially ever-increasing tech debt” is just a description of maintaining a web browser. Using Chromium is still orders of magnitude less work then starting from scratch.
And orders of magnitude worse than just firefox.
It’s just code. It’s not like it’s cursed.
It’s just code…
There’s a reason my title on github is “Code Exorcist”
Brave is awesome on iOS where it will block YT ads! However, for regular desktop usage I’ve been using Firefox for the better part of 2 decades. Never really weaned off it actually.
Especially with the sync option, they are the perfect alternative to Chrome or any of the other commercial initiatives.
Switched back to Firefox myself. Highly recommend.
Firefox and ublock is where it’s at
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah it’s really hard to say it’s only a reskin. It’s clearly not.
There is also https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium as an option.
removed by mod
If you use brave or any chromium browser you’re both an idiot and part of the problem.
Anytime someone proudly says they use brave, I know they’re an idiot and not credible on anything tech related
Why?
75% just being a gatekeeper of browsers
25% because monopolies are bad
thats my best guess at least. It is a legitimate point; it is horrible, cocky phrasing.
50% monopolies are bad, by using any chrome based browser you’re contributing to googles ability to monopolize the web. 50% because it’s for cringe cypto-edgelords and that nonsense, all from a Tech Bro ousted at mozilla for being homophobic.
I use Firefox for that reason, but I won’t insult people for not doing it. Brave is still better than chrome.
Brave have started their marketing spree to try and distract from their most recent controversy. Like clockwork, every time they do something controversial they start marketing to drum up new users.
Just a reminder that Brendan Eich who founded Brave was ousted from Mozilla for being a homophobic piece of shit.
Brave is the edgelord of browsers.
I only use it for the rare web app where I really don’t want the browser ui on pc, any suggestion, preferably before this cryto scam go down? I tried Gnome Web, but on my pc it freeze and crash wherever there is a video on screen.
You can enable PWA in Firefox, try with this https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
Brendan Eich who founded Brave was ousted from Mozilla for being a homophobic piece of shit.
He was ousted because he donated 1000$ to a political project that he personally supported, which yes, was banning of homosexual marriage.
I specify that, even if I shouldn’t, the project in question is not something I agree with. Yet firing him and continuing to attack him years after (like you’re doing here) over opinions he kept personal (he didn’t bring it to Mozilla nor did he comment openly about this opinion) is a little shocking to me.
Let’s say you personally supported a wildly unpopular, some might call bigoted, societal change, say drug criminalization in states that legalized it. As long as you just not exposed this in your professional life, how would you feel if your work fired you over it and if people kept bashing you (without knowing anything about you) and your future professional endeavors for the rest of your life?
We should probably just chill out on that part.
Let me translate your comment with equivalent wording that reveals it’s true nature.
Imagine being caught calling for the eradication of jews in private and then being fired and called an anti-semite for the rest of your life. Even though you didn’t bring this into your workplace and then companies being reluctant to hire you.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that’s a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Not to mention there are levels to drug criminalization, there is a difference if you have a gram of drug on you or a metric fuck ton.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that’s morally defensible.
also your drug criminalization is an entire load of false equivalence bollocks, drug criminalization is a far more complex issue than Gay Marriage, or rather whether we should treat people equally. There are very valid arguments for certain drugs to be criminalized that are way too easy to abuse and kill people with, like fentanyl and I say that as someone that’s a supporter of full drug decriminalization.
Sorry english is not my first language, so that wasn’t clear. By drugs, I meant cannabis here, well I don’t know the details in the US but “soft drugs” that’s being de-criminalized there. Not other kinds of drugs. Though that was just an example to make people realize that expressing unpopular opinions, as long as they’re not illegal, should not lead to firing people and insulting them for life.
Also, you’re the one exposing false equivalences with your godwin point. Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder. And the action of calling for the eradication of any people is (rightly to me) illegal in any case.
There is no version of treating LGBT+ as just somewhat less equal that’s morally defensible.
Never defended the guy’s opinions, I just find comments here a little bit (euphemism) extreme.
how are you not defending him? you are literally making arguments in his defense or in the defense of someone like him, trying to get people to empathize with him for having an “unpopular opinion”
so if you think mass murders are a bit of a stretch (it really isn’t if you know anything about fascism) let’s say he donated to a political group whose goal is to make interracial marriage illegal, do you still think you need to make comments about how that’s “just an unpopular opinion”?
Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder.
How do you think genocides start?
Being against marriage of homosexual people is not at all akin to mass murder.
Continuing to marginalize a vulnerable segment of society sends a message that it’s ok to harass and kill members of that segment. It’s not mass murder, but it certainly encourages violence.
From his lack of response on the topic it’s clear he still supports that position (being anti-gay marriage). He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work, hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work. We can argue that’s not right but as long as it happens to the rank and file I think it appropriate to at least try to hold C-level to the same standards. If it helps you sleep at night I’m almost sure he would have survived the backlash at any company that wasn’t like Mozilla, lord knows C-level came get away with murder most places.
Jobs fire people ALL THE TIME over personally held beliefs or things they say/do outside of work
I thankfully (at least in my opinion) live in a country where this is illegal and it does seem well-enforced (I live in France). I understand this can and does happen in the US, but I still find it shocking enough for me to comment on it. The firing of Brendan Eich had a pretty big backlash so I’m not the only one.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
I do not use brave either because I’m not comfortable with the philosophy and whole crypto thing, but using that as a proof to “the lack of morals and character” of Brendan Eich is a big shortcut to take IMO. Ironically that quoted parts also sounds like something I normally would more likely hear from someone at the opposite side of the political spectrum - from what I guessed is your political affiliation - but I digress and my guess may be completely wrong (in any case, I don’t care much, I just thought it may help me to make you get my point).
Then to make things clear, I’m not against boycotting companies due to the personal actions of someone you vehemently disagree with, I’m against the idea of insulting publicly both him and the projects he’s affiliated with every time his name comes up. This is the very annoying and toxic part.
Furthermore he proved his lack of morals and character by starting a crypto browser. This guy isn’t worth defending.
I wish you had that level of moral integrity when it comes to working with companies that are banked by institutions that ravage and pillage the working class.
He was ousted in part because Mozilla is supposed to be and open and inclusive place to work,
So by “open and inclusive” that means “everyone has to have the personal opinions, even when they don’t bring any of those opinions to the company?”
To clarify, I think gay people should be allowed to marry. I don’t agree with the supposed position Brendan Eich has. I say “supposed” because you haven’t provided any proof that this is his position.
Here’s 2 great questions you should answer:
- Should Muslims be allowed to work at Mozilla?
Islam is very anti-gay, and if you’ve met any Muslim immigrants, I have, they don’t think the gays should marry either. Among, uh, other things. Depending on age and where they’re from.
- Should you be penalized/reprimanded/fired by your employer for having opinions they don’t agree with?
Let’s say this: you work for a Pakistani Muslim and in a workplace that’s predominantly Middle Eastern and North African. He doesn’t believe in gay marriage, you do. You donate like $50 to some LGBTQIA+ organization. Should your boss fire you?
Or let’s be less controversial: you want to legalize all drugs and donate to a candidate who thinks the same. Your employer had a family member who died of a heroin overdose, and they’re pretty anti-drug. Should they fire you?
Or lastly: you’re a Republican. Your boss is a registered Democrat. Neither of you talk politics at work and you get along well and you do your job. Should they fire you?
hard to do that when your boss doesn’t believe you should be allowed to marry.
Was Brendan Rich going out of his way to tell any gay people at Mozilla he thinks they shouldn’t marry? Was he bullying gay subordinates? If he was, yea, he should absolutely be fired. If not, it doesn’t make sense to me for an employer to fire you for personal opinions you hold that don’t effect your day-to-day job.
Believing in oppressing other people’s rights is not the same as actually taking an action to take those rights away.
Advocating those beliefs is! If he wasn’t doing that, no one would know about it
Look, a well thought out argument that really shows the hypocrisy of people now a days. Of course no one is going to respond.
Fire the Muslims too if they take any public actions to oppress others, I say.
Sure, I don’t disagree. But you can’t fire them simply because Islam isn’t pro-gay.
But I need proof that Eich was going out of his way to specifically oppress the gays, not a “well obviously” or tangential claim. If he simply donated to some Republican who later turned out later to actually be anti-gay marriage, who’s to say Eich didn’t know they had that position?
And we don’t even know if Eich is against gay marriage, no one here has shown proof of that. Should I assume you’re possibly Islamaphobic because of your comment? I don’t think I should.
We can’t assume people’s positions based on nothing tangible. It comes off as obnoxious mind reading. In fairness, the internet created these mind reading games all political sides do, because it gets attention and likes. If someone truly holds a disagreeable opinion, you should be able to sufficiently counter it. Granted, that’s a whole different think when we’re talking about being in the workplace.
There are unpopular personal views, and then there is advocating to politically oppress human beings. That’s a hard bright line that disqualifies someone from all civil affairs among decent people.
Nah it’s fair to keep hassling people who have done bad things to society like that. I hope that all the Jan. 6th traitors have a similar permanent status of being hassled about it too.
I get it, but not giving them any kind of an out means they will be permanent enemies even if they do change their mind about wanting a Trump coup. But on the other hand, it’s hard to tell if someone really changes or just realizes they should pretend they’ve changed to make their life easier and bide their time for the right time to come back out.
I just know that I have some views now that are polar opposites of what I believed when I was younger.
Don’t forget that he inflicted the blight that is JavaScript upon the world.
JS is one of the most fun programming languages ever created; how dare you slander its great name.
sure mate, just tell me the result of the following without trying it out.
0 && 1 && false
If I remember correctly, 0 and 1 are considered falsy and truthy respectively, so it should be
falsy and truthy and falsewhich I believe would return false.Tried it out to double-check, and the type of the first in the sequence is what ultimately is returned. It would still function the same way if you used it in a conditional, due to truthy/falsy values.
yes, that is a solid logic, one that I also applied and expected to be the result.
that is until a Vue component started complaining that I am passing in a number for a prop that expects a boolean.
turns out the result of that code is actually: 0, because javascript
of course if you flip it and try
false && 0 && 1
then you get false, because that’s what you really want in a language, where && behaves differently depending on what is on what side.
I was incorrect; the first part of my answer was my initial guess, in which I thought a boolean was returned; this is not explicitly the case. I checked and found what you were saying in the second part of my answer.
You could use strict equality operators in a conditional to verify types before the main condition, or use Typescript if that’s your thing. Types are cool and great and important for a lot of scenarios (used them both in Java and Python), but I rarely run into issues with the script-level stuff I make in JavaScript.
Does this mean anything, I mean they can just prevent us accessing to site. And even though this is something we dont wish many websites are going to implement web integrity; which lead us to being forced to use a browser compatible with web integrity if we want to use web.
I know there are always alternatives to services that are probably going to implement web integrity(mainly referring big techs’ services) but we all sometimes use their services in some cases.
Just don’t use Chrome, don’t use websites that lock you out, complain to support
As @mosiacmango suggested many websites use adsense, it is easy for you to say just dont use them but some of them cant be replaced and dont forget you wont be able to use an alternative frontend. Even if you are not using I believe many of us are using at least some of those services that will implement web integrity or uses google ads
Blocking adsense is NON-NEGOTIABLE
All google has to do is make this web DRM mandatory for websites to use its advertising engine Adsense, and suddenly a majority of the internet may refuse your browser. There are apparently about 56 million sites using Adsense. Here is a list of the top 1k by traffic. All of these could be blocked, along with 56 million more.
Yes, it means a lot.
By “does this mean anything” I referred to “Brave does not support web integrity” or else I am well aware of the impact that web integrity will make
