haha Jonathon we are being commodofied to train learning models 🧛♂️
2025 starter kit. Although manifest v3 will fuck things up in a June, at least for Chromium users (minus Brave).
| Name | Description | Chrome | Firefox |
|---|---|---|---|
| FastForward | Skips wait screens | Extension | Add-on |
| Consent-o-matic | Auto-manages cookie popups | Extension | Add-on |
| uBlock Origin | Advanced manifest v2 adblocker | Extension | Add-on |
Shinigami Eyes is also not a bad shout, but I took a look at the github issue tracker and I can't make out from some of the posts there if it's still good or if it's compromised.
EDIT: Regarding paywalls, I used to use https://github.com/Angeloyo/PaywallHub but it has closed down due to (big surprise) legal threats. I guess https://www.removepaywall.com/ is the better alternative.
Ublock origin has a cookie popup filterlist.
That's good to know. Consent-o-matic is configurable though, it doesn't just ignore the popup, it automates the setting of cookies based on your preference, which could be "allow everything". So it comes down to how you want to handle those popups.
Privacy Badger is also nice to have
it does a good job on blocking as much trackers as it can
I've just been using OptMeOwt for the GPC flag feature, but it looks like Privacy Badger (PB) does that and a lot more, nice. I use Vivaldi that already blocks trackers and have a primitive adblocker, so I don't know how much PB will help, but I'll give it a shot.
Cool table, but it's sad that any of it is needed for normal browsing.
Cool stuff, but I still get a lot of consent pages even after using consent-o-matric tho
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it does handle over 75% of the ones I meet. I've noticed recently that it struggles with certain German websites for some reason. Most sites copy and paste the same type of cookie consent form, so maybe it just doesn't know how to handle that specific type?
Anyway, one need to report the sites where it doesn't work in order for the fellas that run it (Some Danish university students made it originally, not sure if they're still in charge), to work on bypassing those new forms.
I still think webp is good xd
Beside the fact that some software are STILL not supporting it, what do people have against webp ?
I like to save memes from Lemmy to share with friends, and my messaging apps won't send webp's. I use Jerboa and when I long press on the image it says what file type it is. If it's webp, I either sigh and move on, or if it's a really good meme, I screenshot it and crop it. But it's a pain.
Ironically, this post's image is also a webp
honestly, because nothing fucking supports it 😡
idgaf if it's better in every way, if I can't open it in the windows images application (school pc) I'm going to download in PNG instead
Weird, all my software has supported it for years
The forcing of it from Google, trying to set their standards for the web. What's wrong with jpg and png?
We could have jpeg xl, but Google said no
Webp has better compression than png and jpg which allows websites to load faster and consume less bandwith
Google's interests actually align with ours here. They want a good image compression format so pages load faster and they get more info from people instead of them bouncing. Besides the last part, we also want that, so it's a win-win. Webp is legitimately a good image format.
It's slightly better than GIF, yet somehow just the "new GIF" when it comes to animation. At least nvidia only supports GPU decoding of webp in lossy and lossless configuration and not extended or animation etc. which is where it would've been most useful, so instead webp animations become incredibly CPU intensive.
The lossy mode is a dirty hack, the lossless mode is genuinely good though.
Shame it only supports a subset of what PNG does though.
just install ublock origin, silly
Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
