Bug report: If you navigate to the start page and click the Get Started button, the browser’s Back button stops working (you can’t return to the start page by going back).

I’m curious, would you disable GIF autoplay if the browser’s settings offered it?

No.

Like, i get that they are the same in effect, but I still believe in the semantics different between a moving picture, and a audio-track-less video.

A gif can never have audio.

A img tag can never have audio.

mp4s, m4as, webm, embeds tags, video tags, etc, can either have or not have audio, its a surprise.

Because they are videos, not moving/animated pictures.

Anywho, apng is a real standard now, so one can just use that instead of gifs.

Yes. The performance of playing gifs is awful. Even better if gif autoplaying could be gated by the dimension of the gif. Under 100x100? That's fine, autoplay it. But some nutjob's 1000x1000 gif? Please spare me.

Yes please.

Why 20 MB of GIFs when you can have 200 KB of videos?

> Engineers from Apple and Mozilla are largely our bastion against Google's harmful proposals for the web.

Brave also deserves a mention. As long as Brave exists in its current form, there will be a version of Chromium without Google’s “bad” stuff.

Sure, it just has Brave's "bad stuff" instead :)

What would you define as "Brave's 'bad stuff'" ? It would seem that Brave does a lot to leave power of choice while erroring on safety / privacy for the defaults. What issues does it have?

For now it let's you keep the BAT stuff and ads off, but the incentives are not totally aligned there and I'd worry in the future they might force you to use it.

Ultimately they're inserting themselves in as the attention reseller - it's still an engagement/ad play dressed up a bit.

I really like what they've built, but I don't like how they're trying to monetize it. I think the ad/attention model is a corrupting influence on content quality generally, I can see what they're trying to do but I'd rather ad supported models just die. A browser completely focused on the user would just block ads and be done with it (imo).

Just let me pay for software that doesn't suck so our incentives are aligned. If you want a free ad-supported version for people unwilling to pay then fine.

As Chromium adds more and more bad stuff, it will be harder for Brave to patch everything out.

I suspect they'll eventually just remove capabilities entirely that allow ad blocking and brave will have to completely rewrite it and shoehorn it in.

They are already restricting it with manifest v3. It is only a matter of time until it becomes manifest v4.

Does Vivaldi deserve a mention here alongside Brave?

On a related note, it’s a shame that you have to look to emulators to play this game because Nintendo’s official emulation is so bad.

Original hardware + an everdrive + some hardware upscaler [1] is the way to do it.

[1] Super64 is excellent - its "blurry" mode makes things look authentic on my HDTV.

For lowest latency you may also need a CRT. Thin screens are getting better but every stage of the pipeline can introduce more lag than the original.

That's true. I have a trove of CRTs for playing Melee :)

But for the average N64 classic, a commercial HDTV with an upscaler works fine. A high refresh rate monitor also works great (even for something as precise as Melee.)

“This training consisted of completing the entire NES catalogue, about 100 games, in one month.”

I’ve been playing video games my entire life, but I’m not sure I could survive this “training”.

Assuming it was paid training, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week

160 hours gives about 90 minutes per game. For the NES that's probably more than acceptable, many games were very short (Super Mario Bros can be finished by speedrunners in just 5 minutes for an extreme example)

The sub 5 minute speed run of Super Mario Bros skips most of the game via warp pipes.

A more proper comparison would be the warpless category, which takes a bit less than 20 minutes.

Btw, for Mario 3 the 100% record is about one hour.

How many hours do you think it takes for a player to get to the point they can finish the game in 5 minutes?

Imagine how disappointing it'd be to accidentally speedrun a game on your first play.

They likely did it as a group, so together to some extent. When someone got stuck I suppose the others would give hints and tips. Still a difficult task, but slightly easier than going at it alone.

I think there is some youtuber that, recently?, played through every official NES game...

Edit: http://themexicanrunner.com/

Something which is fun to do in your free time becomes a chore if you have to do it reliably, on a deadline.

Take a look at https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/.

The latter subreddit is the highest quality source of covid studies I know of. Great place, high discussion quality.

Heh, when I watched the Chrome Summit recap video earlier this week, when they talked about the Privacy Sandbox developments, I remember thinking to myself “This is all cool, but I don’t trust you”. xD

You get used to Duck over time. Many of us have lived in pre-internet times. It was fine. You don’t have to always get the best search results immediately.

You're asking a lot of an average user, though, if there are two options on the table and one is always going to be worse. We don't tell people with AM/FM radios "Just stay on the AM stations; you get used to the AC wire hum over time."

And to tip the scales on the Google hegemony, we need average users on board.

Simple explanation: Most people are uninformed and irrational.

What an outrageously toxic and arrogant comment. There are many reasons to dislike Firefox. Just because you're not personally affected by those reasons, doesn't make people who are affected by them somehow mentally ill or lesser humans than you, your majesty.

I didn’t say I’m not affected. I’m uninformed about most things, and I sometimes behave irrationally. I don’t see that as a problem. But it does explain why I make bad decisions. That’s all I’m saying. I guess I should have clarified that I didn’t mean my comment negatively.

It's incredibly ironic that you're attempting to teach me a semantics lesson, when you've clearly never read the definitions for the words you're referencing. With one word, the OP implied that people who don't love absolutely everything about Firefox are both mentally unsound and incapable of reasoning.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational

(1): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence (2): not endowed with reason or understanding

Perhaps the next time you feel the need to jump into a conversation to teach someone a lesson, take a moment to consider that you might be the uninformed one, because it's a distinct possibility based on this anecdote.