Technology

60021 readers

3355 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

2087

uBlock Origin developer recommends switching to Firefox as Chrome flags the extension (github.com)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by [email protected] to c/technology

264 comments fedilink hide all child comments

~~https://www.neowin.net/news/ublock-origin-developer-recommends-switching-to-ublock-lite-as-chrome-flags-the-extension/~~

EDIT: Apologies. Updated with a link to what gorhill REALLY said:

Manifest v2 uBO will not be automatically replaced by Manifest v3 uBOL[ight]. uBOL is too different from uBO for it to silently replace uBO -- you will have to explicitly make a choice as to which extension should replace uBO according to your own prerogatives.

Ultimately whether uBOL is an acceptable alternative to uBO is up to you, it's not a choice that will be made for you.

Will development of uBO continue? Yes, there are other browsers which are not deprecating Manifest v2, e.g. Firefox.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheGrandNagus -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I thought it's clear when we ask a question that can't actually be answered

Except... it can, because I did? We're talking about a common industry practice here, not some enigmatic unsolvable mystery of the universe.

Of course it does.

No.

That's 100% the only reason why they use it this way.

Oh is it? Do you have an assertion for that? You really think that when they say "X slams Y" they're trying to make you think there's a physical altercation going on?

Notice how that's explicit in every definition but the last (the newer, still less-common usage I'm taking issue with):

You'll notice I said in the context of headlines. Of course in other contexts slam can mean violence. But because we're specifically talking about headlines here, not, say, discussing a WWE performance, it's very obvious what "slams" means.

You're really going into the weeds here. You asked why they use "slams" in headlines so often, and I gave you an answer. I don't see why you feel the need to argue about it so much.

They use it because people understand what it means, it's emotive, and it's very concise compared to "criticises", "chastises", "denounces", "castigates", or "attacks"

Actually, based on your previous argument, you'd probably hate it if they said "attacks" too, as you could also interpret it as violence.

[–] TrickDacy 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I stopped reading. Being an idiot on purpose isn't as cool as you think it is

It's just flat out ridiculous to say that the word slam has no connotations of forcefulness or violence. Even if I didn't put the goddamned dictionary entry in your face to prove it. Bye.

[–] TheGrandNagus -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not what I said, can you even read? Are you afflicted with cretinism, lad?