What compels non-Americans to deny the obvious truth? I guess they are just idiots who don't study history. You need to read some more. The way Socialist ideas played out in the American and European context are widely different. For Europe socialist ideas more directly influenced government policies and parties. In the US the effect was most directly seen in the labor union movement. Many people credit the labor unions as a reason there was no large communist party in the US. Saying Socialist ideas had/have greater influence in Europe is just obvious.
The Red scare left a lasting cultural imprint. Ask any socalist what they think socialism is and compare it to what an American[1] thinks socialism is. Note the differences.
Also, Glenn Beck had a lot to do with it. He gave a bizarre version of 20c history that stuck, to a lot of angry people who don't read. It used to be that right-wingers would target the New Deal as socialism, now they think the banks and consumer rights are socialism.
If you can convince people the banks are socialist, you've created a Schrödinger's Premise where the banks primarily exist to destroy the banks; any premise that is both true and not true at the same time can be used to prove anything.
> how come math notation relies heavily on infix operators and even subscripts, superscripts and more?
"Mathematical notation" is an ad-hoc compilation of a huge number of historical accidents, conventions and personal preferences. For each function in math, there's at least 3 different notations for it, and somehow each of your professors ends up using a different one.
And to counter your argument, prefix operators appear very frequently in mathematics, including the most common function notation (although of course there's also a postfix and an infix notation), sigma notation, quantificators, roots, and many other common operators.
By the way, your second example should be (print a b c d), I'm not sure why you made a,b,c,d functions there.
It's written in Guile, which is a variant of Scheme. #: is used as the keyword indicator, not an uninterned symbol like in CL.
> Why does gnu-build-system use %standard-phases (a symbol with %)
AFAIK %symbol indicates a constant in Scheme.
It's unfortunate that it isn't written in Common Lisp. CLOS would've been immensely useful there instead of the ad-hoc object system via Scheme records.
I want uBlock to get access to the full contents of requests. It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking.
> The second is that it ensures that poorly optimized web extensions can't slow down the performance of loading sites.
This is true for any code that is running on the browser. Luckily, uBlock Origin and the webRequest API allows me to block arbitrary Javascript and assets so that poorly written websites can't slow down the performance of loading sites.
>It actually helps my privacy, as it can perform tracker blocking.
The goal is to increase increase the level of privacy of the entire ecosystem. While ublock origin may be trustworthy there are many extensions that are not. It would be better to find a more privacy preserving replacement compared to having to trust extensions to be good actors.
>This is true for any code that is running on the browser.
Typically the code doesn't blocking the page from loading though. And again if this change results in faster loading speeds for users ecosystem wide this change is a win.
>There is an inferior port of uBlock to MV3
The downsides seem to be from wanting to be permissionless and not from not being able to replicate the functionally with manifest v3.
> While ublock origin may be trustworthy there are many extensions that are not. It would be better to find a more privacy preserving replacement compared to having to trust extensions to be good actors
By running arbitrary code on your computer you are inherently trusting the author of the code to be a good actor.
> Typically the code doesn't blocking the page from loading though.
Tens of megabytes of bloat block pages from loading all the time.
> And again if this change results in faster loading speeds for users ecosystem wide this change is a win.
uBlock speeds up loading because it blocks useless bloat such as advertisements. MV3 restricts the ability to block content, ergo it will slow down loading speeds.
It's not actually designed for privacy or whatever, it's simply a way to gimp adblockers so that Google (one of the largest online advertisement companies) can get more money from their advertisement business. You must be really naive if you don't understand this simple concept.
>By running arbitrary code on your computer you are inherently trusting the author of the code to be a good actor.
While you may be running arbitrary code, there is only so much it can do from within the sandbox it is in. Because we can't stop 100% of bad actors that shouldn't mean we should give up on security.
>Tens of megabytes of bloat block pages from loading all the time.
That is a separate issue from web extensions. Just because X is slow, it doesn't mean we should not speed up Y.
>MV3 restricts the ability to block content
No, it does not. You just need to use a different API / give it permission to do so.
>It's not actually designed for privacy or whatever
That is one of the reasons Google provided, so yes it is.
>it's simply a way to gimp adblockers
Then why did Google work with adblock extension developers to improve the API by adding things like dynamic rules? The reason is that this is for improving privacy / performance as opposed to trying to kill off extensions.
>You must be really naive if you don't understand this simple concept.
If Google wanted to get rid of ad blockers they would make them against the rules in their extension store. You have to realize that Chrome is software that is used by billions of people and not just you. Google has a responsibility to protect people's privacy and there are engineers who want to be able to move metrics like the number of malicious extensions removed each month or p99 page load speed.
> If Google wanted to get rid of ad blockers they would make them against the rules in their extension store.
You fail to understand the grand strategy. Outright banning ad blockers would be quite radical and may push people away from using Chromium. Simply progressively gimping ad blockers increases Google's revenue from advertisements while keeping all those users.
I do not use Chrome. I use Mozilla Firefox, since it supports a better webRequest API so that uBlock can block ads despite things like CNAME cloaking.
The goal is not to gimp ad blockers and Google is open to working with adblock extension developers so that they can continuing functioning with the new API.
>I do not use Chrome. I use Mozilla Firefox, since it supports a better webRequest API so that uBlock can block ads despite things like CNAME cloaking.
Chrome supports / is planning to support forwarding the domain of the CNAME record. This means that CNAME cloaking would no longer be a thing.
The whole ecosyst includes the webpages that you view though. The loss of privacy is much bigger than the gain considering that ublock is up there on the only extension in use
UBlock Origin is not the only extension that uses the webRequest API that people use. If that were the case they would not have removed it. Again ad / tracking blocking can still be done with the new API.
Guix has a mechanism called search-paths which is defined for any package like Python that searches for things based on envars; it exports the relevant search paths into the environment.
Though it also has shell wrappers, which are essentially a hack around non-propagating dependencies: it allows you to expose things that would normally be visible to everyone, like executables, to just the specific program.
Guix does not make non-free software "intentionally more difficult", it just excludes it from the main repository. There is a nonfree repo that you can add to your guix channels.
Well, all it says that you shouldn't promote it on the "official channels" (i.e. the mailing list and the #guix libera.chat channel). Guix, the package manager itself, does not make installing non-free packages any more difficult than free packages. I suppose it could be said that Guix (the project) makes finding non-free packages harder, although anecdotally I will say that nonguix is the first thing I've heard about guix, since it seems to be the most controversial part of it.
While it's technically correct to say that the software itself does not make it particularly difficult to install non-free packages, it also doesn't come with non-free repos when you set it up, and the documentation and official support channels intentionally lack information on non-free repos. As default settings and documentation are a critical part of a software project, it still has the end result of making it harder (much harder for non-technically-inclined users) to do so.
Non-free software is just off-topic in official channels, there is no need to interpret malicious intent into it. It is no more difficult to enable nonguix than it is to enable any other repository.
I'm sorry, but if ask how to install Firefox and no one tells me in official channel or, worse, suggests alternative browser/fork of firefox. That's a pretty intentional way of making things hard.
>During the deprecation period, we can keep this functionality via patch (since it's there for Enterprise). After V2 is pulled from store, we'll need to stand up our own extension store for manifest v2
Is it that simple? Brave has various proprietary bits, so it's possible they could maintain v2 support. Perhaps others know if this is feasible, from a technical perspective.
Until a chromium browser let's you use arbitrary extension stores, I don't think there's any fork that's divergent enough. And I haven't found one after months of searching.
I'm almost to the point of trying to do it myself.
If Google actually wanted to cripple adblockers, why wouldn't just ban them outright and remove addons used for adblocking purposes from the Chrome extension store, or completely remove APIs that allow for content blocking? Why would they develop a new extension API that still allows you to block ads at all?
Why isn't it possible that the new APIs might have actual benefits and exist for legitimate reasons?
I understand that companies suck and exist solely to serve themselves, and I fully support being skeptical, but I think users here are way too quick to jump on the hate train and start slinging FUD. Maybe you are right and Google is trying to cripple adblockers, but I'm not so sure yet and would like to see others at least consider an alternative perspective.
Outright killing adblocking will reduce Chrome's market share significantly. Enough that Chrome may lose its position as the top browser. Its a terrible business decision that can kill Chrome or atleast give a chance for someone else to take their position. Why would they do that?
Crippling enough that most people won't notice is a viable business decision. Introducing a security benefit, inserting a self interest(crippling adblocks while providing vastly inferior alternative) which won't be noticed by most people but they are being secretly compromised behind the scenes since less ads are blocked and are being tracked more effectively is a profitable business tactic. Bringing a benefit along with a profit tactic compromising customers and pretending the said compromise is as big of a detriment to the consumer, which it is not, is whats going on. Is this so hard to see? Its not a FUD but the profiting parties trying to sway the opinions.
> If Google actually wanted to cripple adblockers, why wouldn't just ban them outright and remove addons used for adblocking purposes from the Chrome extension store, or completely remove APIs that allow for content blocking? Why would they develop a new extension API that still allows you to block ads at all?
They already did all this on the most popular version of Chrome. It seems very reasonable to assume their desired state is to match that version across all platforms.
