48309248302

6 ms·

1.
by 48309248302 5y ago
Sometimes essential medication costs USD $100,000 per year or more.
2.
by 48309248302 5y ago
https://i.reddit.com/
3.
by 48309248302 5y ago
I guess it depends on what you're building. For me the graphql is one of the most useful features. I've only used Next a little, but much prefer Gatsby. I don't think Next is bad though.
4.
by 48309248302 5y ago
> Gatsby can use TS, but you need to set it up I'm not sure how long ago you tried Gatsby, but TypeScript doesn't require setup anymore. Just change the file extensions to .tsx/.ts and it works. It also does incremental bu
5.
by 48309248302 6y ago
Do you think that Wikipedia doesn't want traffic? When people land on Wikipedia it creates brand recognition and the opportunity for them to ask for support from those visitors, which is what keeps Wikipedia going. Some of those users
6.
by 48309248302 6y ago
I'm not sure what it has to do with breaking up Google. I'm just saying that they are leading users to think that Google will stop tracking them if they turn on Google's private browsing mode. The average user doesn't kn
7.
by 48309248302 6y ago
I think that would be a disingenuous argument from Google. Google is directly receiving the analytics data and then feeding only a portion of it to the website. They know that users are easily confused and don't fully understand that o
8.
by 48309248302 6y ago
Google is a company. Their tracking code isn't a website. It doesn't mention to users that that their private browsing mode doesn't actually protect users from their other products.
9.
by 48309248302 6y ago
One more to add: > Google
10.
by 48309248302 6y ago
Google is not the ambiguous other "websites and ISPs." They are the ones making the claim that you are in private mode with a Google product, even though you aren't. Users don't know how things work. They read that as if
11.
by 48309248302 6y ago
It's hard to make that argument when you control the browsing device that tells users that they are in private mode, but then identify specific devices and users from the other end of the network with your other product.
12.
by 48309248302 7y ago
The point there is that is it not supported by Mozilla. Google has strong-armed publishers into implementing their websites in a restricted Google format that speeds up websites just for Google Chrome and Google Chromium-based browsers. It&
13.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Google is unethically abusing their power against non-Chromium browsers like Firefox. Speed matters in the eyes of users, even if we individually block AMP. See the link below for a general pattern. https://www.zdnet.com/art
14.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Being penalized in the search results is outright coercion, not an incentive.
15.
by 48309248302 7y ago
It only works in Chrome. The Web has now been split in two, and you now have to use Google Chrome to be on the faster version. Google is shamefully abusing its power in several places here.
16.
by 48309248302 7y ago
They have been trying to make it so that users can't tell if they are on real webpages or AMP pages, and it looks like they finally implemented it. AMP is about Google, tracking, and ads, not page speed, even if they have convinced man
17.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Web publishers don't necessarily want their content decoupled from their own servers, but they don't have a choice now if they depend on traffic from Google.
18.
by 48309248302 7y ago
AMP is a threat to the entire Web itself. It forcibly takes control away from web publishers and attempts to turn the Web into a Google product. Type "amp sucks" into a search engine to find out more.
19.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Many people use tools to block third party JS from loading. AMP can't be called privacy-friendly while making it extremely difficult to use when tracking (AMP Analytics) is blocked. The 8-second delay happens to me every time I acciden
20.
by 48309248302 7y ago
There are legitimate (privacy/speed) reasons to not load AMP's JavaScript while still not turning of JavaScript entirely. Google does have the capability to know when you're on an AMP page, because the JS loads from ampprojec
21.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Google can't tell if a link has been clicked if JavaScript is off and the `ping` attribute is removed, so AMP removes privacy there. By forcing web publishers to host their content on a Google cache, they lose their server-side logging
22.
by 48309248302 7y ago
There is a difference between the web publisher controlling that abstraction and a web publisher that has been strong armed into one abstraction or another.
23.
by 48309248302 7y ago
It's not written like someone trying to kick a hornet's nest. It's written like someone who has been conditioned inside of a culture that has begun to view the Web as a Google product on some level.
24.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Signed HTTP Exchanges? https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
25.
by 48309248302 7y ago
You should take a hard look at what you're doing. It's breaking the web by enabling Google to embrace, extend, and extinguish. AMP and Signed HTTP Exchanges aren't agreed upon web standards, and Mozilla calls the technology h
26.
by 48309248302 7y ago
That isn't a main reason. People are going to use the internet either way. Google is making a power grab by breaking web standards (embrace, extend, extinguish), and companies like Cloudflare are enabling them. Mozilla has marked Signe
27.
by 48309248302 7y ago
1) I want full control over my servers and to not be penalized in search engines for not hosting my sites on Google. Where are the server-side logs? 2) I want full control over how I publish my sites with real web standards. AMP is not a we
28.
by 48309248302 7y ago
Brussels sprouts are good for you. AMP is more like medical experiments performed on you during an alien abduction.
29.
by 48309248302 7y ago
This sounds terrible. Does it mean that browsers will begin lying to users and say that the users are visiting the website's server when they are really visiting a restricted version of the website that is hosted in Google's cache
30.
by 48309248302 7y ago
You can still do that in Firefox. It's in the settings.

More ›