Just in case you missed it, your quote was referring to encoding requirements. Decoding (eg. Netflix users) will have a different set of requirements. The situation will also improve over time as dedicated hardware encoders and decoders become available.
For the moment, I don't really mind if it requires more GPU power to encode media, since it only needs to happen once. I expect it will still be possible on a weaker card, but it would just take longer.
Contextual permissions are a big improvement over early and uncertain prompts. I will never agree to grant my permission when first loading a page, however, I may do so if intentionally activating a map widget. At least then I understand the context by which it's being asked, and can make a more informed decision.
Well, because it means that other energy generation sources like oil, gas, and coal aren't being used there instead. Since they cause far, far more harm than nuclear waste does, it's a net win.
Note that a checkbox's indeterminate state can only be set via JavaScript, so that lessens the elegance of a CSS-based approach.
I agree that using radios would be better. Or just prefers-color-scheme, which sidesteps the FOUT issue that often occurs when storing theme settings in localStorage.
Thanks for clarifying. It looks like I needed to refresh my memory of the browser APIs.
Reading further, this API only works remotely for CSS via chrome.scripting.insertCSS. For JS, however, the chrome.scripting.executeScript JS needs to be packaged locally with the extension, as you said.
It seems the advanced method is to use chrome.userScripts, which allows for arbitrary script injection, but requires the user be in Dev Mode and have an extra flag enabled for permission. This API enables extensions like TamperMonkey.
Since the Claude extension doesn't seem to require this extra permission flag, I'm curious what method they're using in this case. Browser extensions are de facto visible-source, so it should be possible to figure out with a little review.
Which other parties? Because Mozilla's stance on JPEG XL and XSLT are identical to Google's. They don't want to create a maintenance burden for features that offer little benefit over existing options.
Didn't Mozilla basically say they would support it if Google does? Mozilla doesn't have the resources to maintain a feature that no one can actually use; they're barely managing to keep up with the latest standards as it is.
> maintain a feature that no one can actually use;
If only there was a way to detect which features a browser supports. Something maybe in the html, the css, javascript or the user agent. If only there was a way to do that, we would not be stuck in a world pretending that everything runs on IE6. /s
I made no such implication. Mozilla is certainly an other party, and their positions on standards hold water. They successfully argued for Web Assembly over Native Client, and have blocked other proposals such as HTML Import in the Web Components API. They are still a key member of the WHATWG.
The fact that Mozilla aligns with Google on both of these deprecations suggests the reasons are valid.
I personally see no reason for XSLT today. Outside of the novelty of theming RSS feeds, it sees very little use. And JPEG XL carries a large security surface area which neither company was comfortable including in its current shape. That may change based on adoption and availability of memory-safe decoders.
It means exactly what it says: "What other parties do you mean?". Key players are already in lockstep on this decision, so insisting that Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL.
You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.
>Google must submit to the other WHATWG members doesn't make any sense in an argument for restoring XSLT or JPEG XL.
The comment you replied to was speaking generally, not specifically to XSLT or JPEG XL. They obviously didn't say "Google should be barred from having standards positions" just in context of XSLT/JPEG XL, but they're totally cool with the Google monopoly with every other standard.
>You seem to be reading subtext into a statement that was put plainly.
Nah, I'm really not.
But I'm just farming downvotes, apparently, so nevermind. You win! yay
(It's fun that people are coming to a conversation over 24 hours old, however many levels deep, to downvote!)
Which is why Firefox is steadily losing market share.
If Mozilla wanted Firefox to succeed, they would stop playing "copy Chrome" and support all sorts of things that the community wants, like JpegXL, XSLT, RSS/Atom, Gemini (protocol, not AI), ActivityPub, etc.
With all due respect, this is a completely HN-brained take.
No significant number of users chooses their browser based on support for image codecs. Especially not when no relevant website will ever use them until Safari and Chrome support them.
And websites which already do not bother supporting Firefox very much will bother even less if said browser by-default refuses to allow them to make revenue. They may in fact go even further and put more effort into trying to block said users unless they use a different browser.
Despite whatever HN thinks, Firefox lost marketshare on the basis of:
A) heavy marketing campaigns by Google including backdoor auto-installations via. crapware installers like free antivirus, Java and Adobe, and targeted popups on the largest websites on the planet (which are primarily google properties). The Chrome marketing budget alone nearly surpasses Mozilla's entire budget and that's not even accounting for the value of the aforementioned self-advertising.
B) being a slower, heavier browser at the time, largely because the extension model that HN loved so much and fought the removal of was an architectural anchor, and beyond that, XUL/XPCOM extensions were frequently the cause of the most egregious examples of bad performance, bloat and brokenness in the first place.
C) being "what their cellphone uses" and Google being otherwise synonymous with the internet, like IE was in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Their competitors (Apple, Microsoft, Google) all own their own OS platforms and can squeeze alternative browsers out by merely being good enough or integrated enough not to switch for the average person.
I don't disagree with you, but given (A) how will Firefox ever compete?
One possible way is doing things that Google and Chrome don't (can't).
Catering to niche audiences (and winning those niches) gives people a reason to use it. Maybe one of the niches takes off. Catering to advanced users not necessarily a bad way to compete.
Being a feature-for-feature copy of Chrome is not a winning strategy (IMHO).
>Being a feature-for-feature copy of Chrome is not a winning strategy (IMHO).
Good thing they aren't? Firefox's detached video player feature is far superior to anything Chrome has that I'm aware of. Likewise for container tabs, Manifest V2 and anti-fingerprinting mode. And there are AI integrations that do make sense, like local-only AI translation & summaries, which could be a "niche feature" that people care about. But people complain about that stuff too.
And these aren't niche/advanced features? I'm using Firefox now, and did not know about them. If I'm using them, it is only accidentally or because they are the defaults.
But I'm agreeing with you! These features are important to you, an advanced user. The more advanced users for Firefox, the better.
For Firefox to win back significant share, they need to do more than embrace fringe scenarios that normal people don’t care about. They need some compelling reason to switch.
IE lost the lead to Firefox when IE basically just stopped development and stagnated. Firefox lost to Chrome when Firefox became too bloated and slow. Firefox simply will not win back that market until either Chrome screws up majorly or Firefox delivers some significant value that Google cannot immediately copy.
It's one thing to judge somebody for supporting an unjust and illegal war. It's another thing entirely to judge them for where they were born. None of us chooses our nationality.
There was hardly any judgement, except 'unfortunately'.
Regardless, there are people who want to avoid distributions made by Russians. Are builds reproducible? Where do these people reside? Could be important.
> Of course it is a thing when the country of their nationality is committing genocide, and an authoritarian government.
Bit ironic to continue posting comments here, isn't it?
None the less, I agree with your worry and caution based on where software is produced, but I enact that by checking my OS/software before installing/updating it, not spreading FUD on internet forums.
This website is very liberal with regards to freedom of speech, and while hosted in USA it isn't part of FAMAG, and non-partisan. While the USA is under attack from radical right, it has been before (Dubya).
The thing with citizens of Russia and China who reside in their respective authoritarian country is they cannot be held legally accountable.
I was using Bazzite, but they started talking about potentially shutting it down due to a removal of 32-bit support. It seems a bit safer to choose one of the mainline Fedora spins. Maybe Kinoite or Silverblue if you're into atomicity, though there's still some rough edges to be aware of.
They were going to shut it down due to upstream Fedora considering ending 32-bit support. Sticking to upstream wouldn't have helped you avoid that issue.
Why do you say that? If they drop 32-bit support, maybe I won't be able to play games for a time - at least until somebody rigs up a fix - but at least my operating system will still be supported.
If Bazzite goes poof overnight, though, that's a major problem. At least Fedora's official spins will continue to receive necessary updates.
The Steam client is 32-bit, the majority of games on Steam are 32-bit, and very popular titles like Left 4 Dead 2 are 32-bit.
The last time a distro tried to do this Ubuntu caved and continued supporting it with an extra repo. Fedora has no chance of winning that argument.
The good news is the incident you're talking about was a change proposal proposed by a single person and never even voted on. It did not survive the comment stage.
