It feels like you are missing the point on purpose. I don’t know why, this feels like laziness.

Criticizing the existence of billionaires and being antiwork are two different things. And being antiwork is different than wanting to do nothing. No one wants to do nothing, except in cases of major depressions.

A lot of antiwork post can lack depth but there are really interesting criticism to be made about work as it’s organized these days. I suggest you dig the subject.

Why would anyone use a browser that requires you to login, especially after that: https://kibty.town/blog/arc/

Depends on the country you’re in.

without being pwned

How do you know?

I can’t, I forgot most of it. But a little search returned some results:

• https://medium.com/@bentyrer/5-game-developers-who-turned-piracy-into-opportunity-8809914c94fc
• https://torrentfreak.com/game-developer-sees-boost-in-sales-after-releasing-official-torrent-200113/
• https://torrentfreak.com/game-developer-promotes-game-on-torrent-sites-091106/
• https://torrentfreak.com/game-developer-flirts-with-pirates-on-bittorrent-sites-090427/

But it’s also true that sometimes it’s not done with a pro-piracy stance but they would just rather have it pirated than bought through key-resellers as these can hurt indy-game dev a lot.

You are conflating the two meanings of free. Pirated software does not improve your freedom and open source is not necessarily free.

That being said I’ve seen a few indie game studios making pro-piracy statements or even putting the game on torrent networks themselves. But these are the one that deserve the most to be paid.

While the code being open is good you still have to rely on trust.

I certainly don’t have the time to review to code of each extension I use. And even then, we have no garanties that the extension distributed through the browser stores has the same code.

You can see the issue was opened on august 18th but the responsible commit was only made on the 19th. So the code was pushed the extension users before it was made available on the repository. Open code is of no help here.

It just showed the developer is not to be trusted.

This seems sketchy : https://github.com/brookhong/Surfingkeys/issues/1796

I agree, there are a bunch of annoying limitations. But it’s better than nothing. To me the best vim based browser is qutebrowser, too bad it’s using chromium.

I don’t think it’s the same source code (uBOL vs uBO). And it’s definitely not the same logic, that’s the whole point, blocking with MV3 must be done in a declarative way.

They do kill uBlock Origin. The Lite version is a different extension.

Yes but that’s not the same. Because of Chrome limitation it can’t update it’s blocklist directly. You have to update the whole extension to update the blocklist and that goes through Google validation in the Chrome store. It adds delay and Google could even refuse some updates. The blocklist is also shorter because not all filter rules are supported.

How does it compare to tridactyl?

That’s not fair, I want to downvote you now.

Why should testing be done over some allegation by an organization that’s not recognized by the IOC?

• Privacy Badger stopped using heuristic 4 years ago because it could be used to fingerprint you.

• Cookie autodelete simply does not work with Firefox’s Total Cookie Protection, which is enabled by default.

As of Firefox 86, strict mode is not supported at this time due to missing APIs to handle the Total Cookie Protection. Also as of Firefox 103, standard mode has also enabled Total Cookie Protection. Use ‘strict’ mode if using pre-86, use standard mode for versions 86-102, or from version 103+ use the custom configuration and set cookie to ‘cross site tracking cookies’ option (not the cross-site cookies).

https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

You don’t even need an extension to automatically delete cookies, just enable privacy.sanitize.sanitizeOnShutdown and privacy.clearOnShutdown_v2.cookiesAndStorage. To add an exception: Ctrl+I>Permissions>Cookies>Allow.

Check Arkenfox’s extension page and the section about sanitizing on shutdown.

Wow, you are really confused. The argument about the functionality being already implemented by Firefox was about https everywhere. This has nothing to do with adblocking and it does break some sites (the one still not using https) but you can still access them with a click.

Cookie autodelete is useless if you use Firefox on strict mode.

I don’t understand your edit, how is more things doing the same thing better? It adds complexity, attack surface while taking resources.