We should simply not support developers that re-implement links, buttons, and text boxes entirely in Javascript. Such false elements lack inbuilt functionality (particularly with regards to accessibility), and are slower.
For some people, it's about not breaking the web platform in ways that require JavaScript. For example, without JavaScript, links have predictable behavior. With it, you have link shaped buttons that can do anything and that often break when you try to do things the author didn't anticipate, like opening a link in a new tab.
Requiring JS (and especially if you trendchase the latest "modern" crap) is essentially advocating for keeping Big Browser's monopoly and effective control intact.
We should simply not support websites that download huge arbitrary programs from a huge number of arbitrary third party domains just to retrieve bit by bit what is in the end a static website and reimplement all kinds of standardized browser features in a non standard way that makes a huge number of assumptions and only targets a subset of people with specific browsers with specific settings using specific input devices in a specific way and just break that functionality for everyone else making the open web very closed by enforcing clients behave and be used in a certain pre approved way, breaking accessibility and crippling all kinds of browser features often with disregard and often with intention.
It's my device and I should get to decide what code I run in it, what software I use, how that software displays content to me and how I interact with it.
On the contrary, I don't get why (certain) sites - and people - absolutely insist on serving even the most basic things via copious amounts of JavaScript, and other adjacent technologies. Most website content is basic multimedia, text, images and video, and most use of JavaScript is either frivolous or is supporting user-hostile designs, such as infinite scroll.
Reminds me to the WordPress / PHP scourge of the 2010s. "You don't understand, we have to dynamically serve our site using PHP, and have an extensive CMS that we can barely use ourselves so we'll will still constantly reach out to you about." And then the site is barely more than a brochure or a blog.
“[Progressive enhancement] was just an idea by a few niche people who wanted to disable 1/3 to 2/3 of their browser's technology then demand that web-site operators/builders spend a lot of time and money on implementing for that sub-1% population. They didn't, and these people had no real leverage.”
When progressive enhancement was the thing, nobody wanted to "disable 1/3 to 2/3 of their browser's technology", browsers mostly lacked many of modern CSS and JS enhancements across the board and having them fail graciously while still using modern features for the few who would support it was just the professional thing to do.
It sill is today of course, but it is obvious there are not many professionals left in webdev.
In many countries, the theft of trade secrets is a serious crime. In the US, for example, it carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $5M fine. It’s unclear to me why this is a civil suit. It may have to do with the alleged activity taking place overseas.
It's a civil suit now, but has most likely been referred to the DOJ and US Attorney's Office for criminal investigation.
Best case scenario for Rippling: within 6 months the Deel board boots out the CFO & CEO. Shortly thereafter, several people involved on the U.S. side (and potentially their Irish spy) will be indicted for criminal violations of the Economic Espionage Act (notably Rippling has sued Deel for violating the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which provides for civil remedies). In their lawsuit, Rippling has classified their Sales and Marketing Strategy as "trade secrets" which is something that Deel will dispute given that marketing is inherently public. How that plays out criminally is another story, but chances are once the FBI digs into the Deel internal messages, they will find incriminating evidence. 1 or 2 of the Deel executives will plead guilty to conspiracy charges and get 1 year and 1 day. Deel, the corporation entity, will enter into a deferred prosecution agreement.
It's buried in the lawsuit, but Deel is implicated in sending payments overseas to Russia ostensibly in violation of international sanctions. In the Biden administration, this would have definitely interested a US Attorney, but not so much in this administration. Whether it has changed Rippling's strategy vis-à-vis best way to hurt Deel is another story. Perhaps they saw the possibility of Deel not facing punishment or press coverage over the Russia sanctions issue precisely because of the administration change and decided to play their other card: a spy.
Best case scenario for Deel: they covered their tracks internally by using auto-deleting Signal and theres no actual evidence of executives dictating what their alleged spy should be doing. They settle the lawsuit for several million dollars and politely apologize to Parker. Maybe there is a countersuit somewhere? Rippling has pursued this aggressively and confidently which hints that maybe there is some level of projection (i.e. they also had a spy in Deel). As for the criminal charges, if it gets to the point of an indictment of a C-level person, they will have lost, so Deel will need to hope someone low level was involved to pin it on.
You don't want to use AI for complex things that you might not fully understand. These are the cases where you'll miss the hallucinations and get fucked
If only free and enlightened individuals could, through their choices in a market in which everything is allowed, spawn such a diverse set of solutions, or allow true self-help, that every need is met...
...rather than everything consolidating under a few big players who leave few realistic alternatives, who confront users and customers with conflicting and hard to identify or quantify problems. There might just be 3 unreconcilable goals like:
- not allowing Google/Chrome to own the internet outright
- have privacy for oneself and others who don't "opt out"
- have a browser that is established enough to work on most websites
and you can't tell me what browser to use.
The same issue is present almost everywhere you look: All products have such massive permutations of health, energy, waste, sustainability, ethicical and economical parameters that making a decision is almost impossible for any well-informed individual, let alone for enough people to steer change in any meaningful way.
If you maintaing this sort of "Libertarian" view, make sure you're not inadvertendly serve the interest of corporations that would like to not be criticized nor regulated.
Mozilla needs to pay their developers. Donations alone don't cover the wages. The way money is divided is rather suboptimal at the moment in my opinion, but most of that money comes from Google, which may be ruled illegal in the coming months if the antitrust case against Google pans out well, leaving a hole where 86% of Mozilla's funding used to be. They _need_ to make money.
Developing browsers is very expensive. Currently, the only people doing that are Google+Microsoft (Blink), the megacorps in it for the ad money, Apple, in it for their own independence, and Mozilla, trying to be a third party. Forks are made constantly by individuals or small teams, and are often lagging behind in quality, maintenance, and security; Palemoon simply cannot keep up with Firefox, KHTML is effectively broken, and even the maintained Gnome fork of WebKit has tons of issues that make it hard to use it as a daily driver.
Everyone wants a super duper privacy friendly browser that only does browser things and preferably only works on their personal requirements, but nobody wants to actually spend time and money to develop one. I hope Ladybird turns out well, or maybe Servo will get revived into a functional browser, but how those browsers will be developed and distributed is entirely up to those browser vendors.
You can use whatever browser you like, but unless you're paying a significant sum for it or are part of the dev team, you'll have to succumb to the terms under which the browser is made available. I'd rather have parties like Mozilla funded by donations or independent government funds than by big tech, but nobody is willing to spend the millions necessary to catch up to Chrome just yet.
> but unless you're paying a significant sum for it
In fact, zero donations cover wages, and AFAIK nobody is paying for it, because Mozilla does not provide any way for users to give money to Firefox. You can't blame users for not taking an option that was never given.
On HN, all humans, aka non AI bots, do understand the underlaying consequences and usually have a pertinent perspective on the technical cost of the web engines from the whatng cartel.
If you don't want to understand that, I cannot do much more.
Progress bars are annoying because that’s what scroll bars are for, and because horizontal progress bars (a) have the wrong orientation and (b) look like a loading/download indicator.
