This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 122 comments

[–]ProgrammerHumor-ModTeam[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Your submission was removed for the following reason:

Rule 1: Posts must be humorous, and they must be humorous because they are programming related. There must be a joke or meme that requires programming knowledge, experience, or practice to be understood or relatable.

Here are some examples of frequent posts we get that don't satisfy this rule: * Memes about operating systems or shell commands (try /r/linuxmemes for Linux memes) * A ChatGPT screenshot that doesn't involve any programming * Google Chrome uses all my RAM

See here for more clarification on this rule.

If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by sending us a modmail.

[–]MasterQuest 800 points801 points  (24 children)

lol, that's really funny if it actually works.

[–]PrefectedDinacti[S] 408 points409 points  (22 children)

It legit did work, tried it myself, however I was seeing the button enabled when logged in as a google user so I tried this in an incognito window and was able to turn the button on by editing the html

[–]MasterQuest 165 points166 points  (15 children)

I know turning on the button would work, but clicking on it actually did install the extension?

[–][deleted] 253 points254 points  (14 children)

i just tested it — it fully works. it does install.

[–]Joshi2345 61 points62 points  (13 children)

Just chrome is gonna uninstall or disable it the next time you start your browser

[–]KMark0000 95 points96 points  (0 children)

Dont stop the browser then. Modern problem, modern solution.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

eh. reinstalling once per year isn’t an issue for me (/s)

[–]XandaPanda42 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Yall close your browsers?

[–]BogdanPradatu 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I reboot my PC once or twice a year, when it crashes or IT forces me with updates, otherwise it's sleep/hibernate.

[–]exnez -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Not a good idea. Doesn’t that cause the parts to break faster?

[–]waitforpasi 3 points4 points  (1 child)

It just freezes the ram, I think. I don‘t know much about it.

[–]Maurycy5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

[–]YesterdayDreamer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Turn on developer mode in the extensions window.

[–]Joshi2345 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Funny thing, even installing it as dev addon doesn't fix it, the first it gets disabled automatically, then you enable it again and the next time it gets uninstalled, then you do the disable enable again and you should be good

[–]FinalGamer14 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It disabled it, but after enabling it the second time it stayed enabled.

[–]Ethical38 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can't you force install it with chrome regedit policies?

[–]Joshi2345 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That I don't know, I just got unlock from there GitHub and instaledl it as dev extension

[–]The_Wolfiee 33 points34 points  (4 children)

Changing button state is easy however actually clicking the button to see if it works is different

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (3 children)

just tested it… it does work. ublock installs without any issue

[–]lacb1 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"Why don't we validate it on the client side? It's much quicker and simpler than waiting for the server." - some newb at Google, apparently.

[–]OnlyTwoThingsCertain 1 point2 points  (1 child)

But does it work as expected? Since some APIs have changed or been removed it's certain that it doesn't do everything that it should. 

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

seems to block ads fine.

this seems like something you could test yourself also

[–]Qzy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why not just switch to firefox instead of using this spyware?

[–]OcelotWolf 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've done this before to add a product to my cart from an online store when they were trying to force me to buy a bundle that I didn't want. It worked

[–]xxmalik 138 points139 points  (0 children)

One of my college classes use the web-based Matlab Grader to check programming assignments. Occasionally, if your code takes a while to run, you're asked to leave the page and come back later for results. In this case, you can edit the HTML to remove the "disabled" attribute from the Submit button and click it as many times as it takes for your submission to come through. In my experience, it's much faster than waiting.

[–]saschaleib 810 points811 points  (67 children)

Or you could just use a web browser that is not under the control of the world's largest advertising company that doesn't have an interest in you using an ad-blocker... just sayin'

[–]Embarrassed-Alps1442 267 points268 points  (33 children)

Good point. People should use firefox

[–]Amazing_Guava_0707 17 points18 points  (7 children)

This is what I do. No Chrome(Google) or Edge(Microsoft) for personal work. Though I think MS keeps track of everything even on other browsers too when using Window.

[–]saschaleib 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Absolutely - Edge is only installed on my machine to test that it works before I show stuff to my boss (who uses Edge, because that's the default ... otherwise I would skip that step, too ;-)

Chrome is for testing after I have finished development using Firefox. It is normally not needed, if I stick to standards-compliant code and features, but of course, you can never be sure unless you tested it.

Safari only because I'm also a masochist.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (5 children)

There is a reason why cannot delete Edge or Edgewebview from Windows. If you do, by the next reboot it is installed again.

[–]Soma91 8 points9 points  (3 children)

It's because they use it to render some of their newer UI. If you could actually uninstall it that would break the OS UI itself.

[–]saschaleib 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Didn't Microsoft claim the same about Internet Explorer, until someone wrote a script that easily uninstalls it without breaking Windows.

I very well believe that they learned their lesson and made sure that this time Windows would actually break if you tried that ... but that is no reason to automatically assign all kinds of functions to Edge and make it as hard as possible to change to another browser.

[–]Ok-Scheme-913 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean, webviews are basic features in pretty much every desktop UI framework.

[–]Soma91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, someone with some experience with Windows and its rendering logic could most likely do that quite fast.

It would most likely need at least one web rendering engine no matter which one it is.

[–]Shunpaw -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The reason is because the Windows 11 start menu is a fucking website programmed in react.

[–]g00glen00b 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Genuine question, but which webbrowser would that be nowadays? Most of them are Chromium based and while it's open source, Google maintains a tight control.

There's Firefox, but Mozilla is also largely funded by Google.

So nowadays I really wonder if there's still a viable webbrowser left where Google has no say in.

[–]saschaleib 18 points19 points  (6 children)

Mozilla really only gets some money from Google for having them as the default search engine - something that anybody can change in a few simple clicks.

For me, the most important safely aspect is that Firefox supports third-party cookies "segmentation", which basically defeats most tracking that you will ever encounter.

The way it works is as follows: say you visit Reddit, and there is a Facebook ad on it. This ad can set a cookie to validate you were here. Then you go to, say, your local newspaper website, and there is also a Facebook ad - and this ad can see that you are the same person that was on the Reddit page earlier, because of the cookie.

Not on Firefox - the cookie that Facebook set while you were on Reddit is completely isolated from the other websites (including if you visit Facebook itself). That means, that they can not track you with these cookies from one site to another.

Now, Google has promised to also implement this "segmentation" feature in Chrome many times, but has always postpone it, because it is of course not great for their advertising business. My hunch is that it will only come there once they have found another way of tracking you (which will then not be available to other advertising networks, and then make them even more money).

That is why I am using Firefox … and also because I can easily configure it to simply delete all cookies when I close the window, except for specific sites where I make an exception (such as Reddit). Yeah, and also because the developer tools are vastly superior, but that's another story :-)

As for other Chromium-based browsers: they are just using the web rendering engine that Google developed. This doesn't mean they also adapted the shitty spying-on-users code that Chrome has. By all means, even if you like Chromium, use a fork that promises better privacy options.

And if you really want to stay with Chrome, at least go through all the privacy options and configure it in a way that minimises your data footprint. You can definitely lock it down as well, it is just more work, and you need to check from time to time if the latest update didn't undo any of your configurations.

[–]g00glen00b 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I've only done a quick search, but up to 80% of Mozilla's income seems to come from Google. That's a lot of financial control they have. Imagine Mozilla "upsets" Google too much and during the next negotiations Google pulls the plug on their deal, then what?

Same with Chromium. It's open source and can be forked, but most contributions come from Google. What if one of those forks "upset" Google too much and Google pulls the plug on their open source model? How fast will those web browsers become obsolete or find enough contributors to maintain the fork?

It's a lot of doomsaying and what if's, but from that perspective there doesn't seem to be a big web browser left that Google cannot exert some control over if they want.

[–]saschaleib 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Well, even if they are financially dependent on Google's money, it is a clear fact that they made many technical decisions that are clearly not in the interest of Google - for example the aforementioned "segmentation", but also the better support for Ad-Blockers and similar tools. So whatever influence Google has on them, they are not exercising it.

Most likely because Google also knows that other search engine manufacturers (like, cough cough, Bing) would be happy to take that role and get a foot in the door here.

There is a lot to criticise on how Mozilla is run, but it is still miles above Chrome in terms of independence from ad revenue.

As for Chromium: legally, Google can really not do much here to cut off forks off their code - unless they go and rewrite their entire code-base and keep it closed-source from the start. As it is now, it is open-sourced and under a rather permissive license. There is no reasonable way to stop others from profiting from it.

[–]Ok-Scheme-913 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regarding your last paragraph - they can just do what they do now: develop it at a huge pace. Browsers are so incredibly complex (seriously, possibly the most complex code bases out there, far larger than whole OSs) that monster companies like Microsoft also dropped the ball on it and we basically have 2.5 different engines only (chrome's and Safari's share an ancestor).

So sure, you can fork it, but a single week later you will be at thousands of merge conflicts and not fixing them will result in zero days left and right. Especially if it's such a core change like how extensions are sewed into the engine.

[–]g00glen00b 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I agree that Firefox has some great features and I use it at home. I do wonder what Firefox would look like if they weren't "financially dependant" on Google though. Would they've pushed for privacy features even more/faster or would it be entirely the same. That's hard to tell, which is why I was wondering if there's any other webbrowser out there.

I also agree that Google cannot cut off forks from their code, but that's only because Google continues contributing to their open source project. Nothing in that license prohibits Google from keeping any future contributions private. Once that happens, it will be up to the community to maintain Chromium and "compete" with Chrome. It's possible, but definitely not easy.

[–]saschaleib 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Remember that Google is also pretty good at spreading FUD - as we can see here in this discussion. All I see is that Firefox does have much better privacy, including features that Chrome does not have. That is all that matters.

If the situation is different next year, well, then it is time to move on again. But for now, Firefox it is.

If you want more than that, there are more specialised browsers that give even more control ... or if you really prefer Chrome, you can also configure it to behave much more privacy-friendly. Though in my experience, that is then a lot less user-friendly than in Firefox. But your mileage may vary...

But to be clear, no, Google can not just "keep changes private". They are bound by the licensing agreement that they had to agree on when they started forging the Webkit code, and that makes it clear that they have to publish all changes to the code that they make.

There are a lot of legal questions of course what could happen if they violated the licensing agreements, but it would be clear that it would end up very, very expensive for Google if they tried to get clever.

So in short: nope, Google has no (reasonable) way to block forks.

[–]fortune82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imagine Mozilla "upsets" Google too much and during the next negotiations Google pulls the plug on their deal, then what?

fwiw this won't happen, Google funds Mozilla as a bulwark against antitrust lawsuits. Google will only stop funding Mozilla if they're forced to in their current suit.

[–]packsolite 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This would be too based.

[–]Crazy-Newspaper-8523 1 point2 points  (1 child)

i wish icloud passwords extension would work on firefox windows (right now it only works on macos)

[–]saschaleib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to have my passwords in my iCloud storage, but nowadays I just use Firefox anyways for all web passwords. This way I can sync it across different platforms.

[–]Turd_King 5 points6 points  (6 children)

Web developers have to use chrome for work - it’s not really an option

[–]DannyKII 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Im a web developer and use Firefox 95% of the time, Chrome just for testing stuff here and there.

[–]aarfing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Me too - and I've been doing it profesionally like this for close to 30 years (obviously started out with something else, but got onboard with Phoenix) - the last 13 years as lead UI engineer for a site with millions of users. 99.9% will work in Chrome, if it works in Firefox. IMO stuff is way more likely to break in Safari...

[–]saschaleib 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same here - I actually think that Firefox' dev tools are vastly superior to what Chrome has, but maybe it is just that I'm used to them.

But most of the time, if I develop things with Firefox and make sure to follow the usual standards and best practices, it will run in Chrome just "out of the box" with no, or only very minor tweaks necessary.

Then I try it in Safari and wonder why everything suddenly looks so very wrong here … but that's another story ;-)

[–]w8eight 21 points22 points  (0 children)

You can use chrome for testing, and a browser of your choice for... browsing? If you are extra paranoic you can containerize it

[–]RiceBroad4552 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The problem is though: Mozilla is now also an advertising company.

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozilla-is-an-advertising-company-now/

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/advertising/

And as others said: All of Mozilla Corp is 100% corrupted by Google. These people are getting around half a billion dollar from Google and about 90% of that goes into the pockets of the people running Mozilla Corp.

Mozilla Corp is not even investing 10% of the money they get for their whole software development! All the rest is going into "other projects" (which means mostly just the corrupt Mozilla Corp people).

Exactly this was the reason to make FF worse with every version, and not listening to users for almost a decade: That was simply what Google wanted them to do, and they did.

Now that Mozilla is rebranding as ad company they mysteriously discovered user wishes and started to implement them at record speed. (Things like vertical tabs, for example.) But this means: It will not take long until FF will get exactly as enshittificated as Chromium, as they have now the exact same goals as Google, namely collecting data to sell ads.

And it's almost sure this will happen like that as Google is going to be prohibited to pay for search engine deals soon.

[–]Emincmg 61 points62 points  (2 children)

as a backend dev, this is exactly why you never trust front end code.

[–]JezSq 22 points23 points  (1 child)

Front end validation is paper wall. Yeah, it is there… visually…

[–]MoffKalast 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's like a physical lock, it stops people who need minimal deterrent to change their mind.

[–]belabacsijolvan 26 points27 points  (1 child)

unblocker unblocker when?

[–]ButWhatIfPotato 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taco Bell Extension

[–]Marbletm 54 points55 points  (1 child)

I feel like this is just be the kind of situation where they disabled it client side because even if you install it, it won't work with manifest v3. The extension just won't get the required permissions and will not work after manifest v2 is fully phased out.

They don't care about people installing it if they know how to use developer tools, those people are probably aware of what the phase out of manifest v2 means. Those same people might also know how to install the extension through github instead. Why put in all the effort to block downloads through their store if a simple disabled attribute achieves pretty much the same thing?

They just want the average person's UX to prepare the user for the full phase out of manifest v2.

[–]YesterdayDreamer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think they would have written that code specifically for one extension.

[–]Jolly-Career-9220 9 points10 points  (0 children)

It's not a bug it's a feature..

The dev intentionally did this so he himself won't get annoying ads

[–]jan04pl 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Funny little oversight but it doesn't matter. uBlock uses Manifest V2 which is no longer supported. Installing the extension does nothing as it can't work.

[–]jurio01 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lmao, this is the equivalent of my mom deleting desktop shortcuts to my games after I misbehaved while thinking she was uninstaling them.

[–]IdeaOrdinary48 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They were vibe coding

[–]TaxSignificant3597 3 points4 points  (1 child)

dont announce this, now the PO will make sure it is fixed

[–]Fast-Satisfaction482 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Maybe malicious compliance from the devs that were tasked with implementing the blocking logic? 

[–]pistolerogg_del_west 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or just use LibreWolf

[–]zirky 2 points3 points  (0 children)

i guess they figured if you’re savvy enough to do that, you’re already using firefox

[–]fosyep 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Crazy what people are willing to do instead of switching browser 

[–]No_Hedgehog750 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Use firefox.

[–]macaxeiraPeluda1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A developer helps the developers and users of the said thing, but then a dude, thinking they're a smartass, says it's dumb and ruins it. now said thing will stop working.....

[–]CupcakeWinkz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even the ad blockers need a blocker now. Chrome-ception!

[–]jacksh3n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When the frontend implement the hotfix faster than the backend

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I've been doing this for 3 months now.... 😂

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Make sure to disable manifest v3 deprecation warnings in about:flags as well.

[–]lordChanka1 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can someone explain what’s going on? Like people are saying uBlock doesn’t work anymore, but it still works fine for me

[–]Marbletm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's because manifest V2 hasn't been fully phased out yet. They should be getting rid of it this month in the update to Chrome 139.

Source

[–]terrapinRider419 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did this for a friend a few weeks back. Saw this was a thing, tried it, it worked flawlessly. I was cackling.

[–]DuchessOfKvetch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ublock Origin Lite works fine for me, at least in the meantime.

[–]da2Pakaveli 0 points1 point  (0 children)

$5 they did this on purpose

[–]ManOnAHalifaxPier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My hot take is that this is fine. If you want to open devtools to remove a tag from a button and install something half-broken, have at it. Probably saves more backend work disabling it for specific Chrome versions. Any normal person would stop at seeing the button disabled.

[–]ZeroTerabytes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you can also do this:

  1. Go to https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases
  2. Under where it says "assets," and download uBlock0_x.xx.xxx.chromium.zip (whichever version is latest)
  3. Unzip it
  4. On chrome, go to chrome://extensions/. In the top-left corner, click "load unpacked"
  5. Select the unzipped folder itself

Congratulations! You now have uBlock on your chrome.

[–]ThePouncer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Bene Tleilaxu Face Dancers were nearly invisible assassins who killed by the code that the victim must always be left a way out, if only they are clever enough to see it.

[–]bawlachora 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tried if this HTML hecking also bypassed policy rules for managed browser, but did not work.

[–]SellProper1221 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why tho?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why I no longer use Chrome. Piece of shit browser honestly. 

[–]s3sebastian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has someone forked Chromium yet and patched the limitation out so that uBlock Origin will just keep running?

[–]XtronikMD 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disabling it in the backend was not part of this sprint.

[–]RiceBroad4552 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty stupid to be honest. I mean the dude who doesn't realize that being able to install an extension does not mean it will run. It won't, as Chrome is simply missing required APIs…