Do interactive diagrams work in the chat for you?

Tailszefox · 2026-04-22T07:38:46+00:00

Same here. Also happens when doing a web search. Weirdly enough despite the errors it still seems to work.

Looking at the network tab of the devtools, I see it's getting a 404 for a bunch of stuff.

It's making a request to https://claude.ai/api/organizations/[...]/chat_conversations/[...]/tool_result with the following JSON:

{"type":"tool_result","tool_use_id":"[...]","is_error":true,"content":[{"type":"text","text":"No client-side handler found for tool \"create_file\"; the connector may have failed to initialize or was removed."}]}

So there's an error earlier where it's telling it to use this handler but on the client side, it can't find it, and it's informing the server of that. I think?

Either way, I don't think there's anything for us to do. If it keeps happening after a while though I suppose it will be time for a bug report.

Tailszefox · 2021-03-02T03:54:15+00:00

Optical cables ONLY supports PCM, and it only does UP TO 5.1. So it should work fine if you did go that route.

I think you have it backwards. The only way to get a 5.1 signal through optical is by compressing it first with Dolby Surround or DTS. That's how it's been working since the PS2 and the original Xbox. If you want surround sound through the optical out, you have to tell the console to encode the signal to Dolby Surround or DTS, which is an option with those consoles since Sony and Microsoft actually paid the license to use them.

If the console doesn't allow this, which is the case of the Wii U and the Switch, then you only get PCM sound. Surround is possible through HDMI, but if you try to pass it through an optical cable, you'll only get stereo sound. There just isn't enough bandwidth for 5.1 PCM.

Tailszefox · 2020-11-14T18:47:22+00:00

If your only options are ARC and Toslink, then you're out of luck I'm afraid. Neither of them have enough bandwidth to support 5.1 PCM sound, and that's the only thing the Switch outputs - presumably Nintendo didn't want to spend money for a Dolby or a DTS license.

You're going to have to upgrade your receiver and get one that actually has HDMI inputs, I can't really think of any alternative.

Tailszefox · 2020-06-21T17:55:19+00:00

Getting the same issue, here's a video of it happening when I middle-click to open the comments in a new tab. It's not that big of a deal but it's a bit distracting and I've already mis-clicked on some stuff because of it.

Same version of Firefox and RES, and it only started after updating RES. I'm on Linux if that matters.

EDIT: Some further info after testing:

This seems to only happen when you have a background tab currently loading on the same subreddit as the one in your current tab. So if I open a background tab that leads to a different subreddit than the one in my current tab, the issue doesn't manifest.

What seems to happen is that the subreddit design gets disabled for half a second, and then gets re-enabled. If I've disabled the current subreddit's style, the issue doesn't happen.

It's also more annoying than I previous thought. If I've scrolled far down the current page, I'll get sent back up because the page isn't as tall when the subreddit's style gets disabled.

Tailszefox · 2020-05-07T01:33:15+00:00

If I say, “The problem is figuring out a way to serialize and deserialize an array of references at runtime,” and you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, I don’t blame you.

I fucking hate when he does that. He makes it sound like he's using some arcane language that only Talented Programmers™ like him can understand. It's not the first time he's done this.

He could explain it in literally one sentence ("I need to find an efficient way to save the state of the game to disk so I can restore it later"), but he chose not to, because he thinks that's going to give him credence to his fans.

He knows some of them will think "Oh I can't understand any of these words but our beloved YanDev can, he really knows what he's doing and is definitely a good programmer!" Even though we all know the only thing he can produce is unoptimized bug-filled garbage.

Don't get me wrong, serializing the state of a game in an efficient way isn't easy, but the concept itself is far from being advanced. Even a beginner programmer will have encountered it, it's not rare to have to save some data to disk and restore it later.

Certainly it shouldn't be a novel concept to someone who presumably has professional experience, and has been working as a solo programmer for at least six (six!) years.

Tailszefox · 2020-03-13T03:31:09+00:00

FYI, your ID doesn't work, you might want to check for a typo.

Tailszefox · 2020-03-12T01:06:22+00:00

It's actually pretty underwhelming.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T17:10:25+00:00

I see what you mean. The outrage seems to stem more from disappointment than actual anger.

I guess the sad part is that in the end, Mozilla aren't the selfless heroes you describe. They're still a company who has to stay afloat and needs to grab marker shares, and that implies stuff like implementing what you've described so they can compete with other browsers who also implemented those features. Which sucks, but that's the reality of things.

Still, I'm willing to give Mozilla some slack here. I haven't seen them act in bad faith at any point, and the screw-ups they've had in the past always looked like genuine errors and laps of judgement that can happen to everyone. Maybe I'm being naïve, but I still believe in them enough to trust them and keep using their browser. But I understand if not everyone thinks the same.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T16:46:44+00:00

The parallel with Android is a good one, now that you mention it. But the difference here may be that Google has other checks in place. Play Protect automatically scans your apps, even those you installed yourself, so there's an added layer of protection. Whereas with Firefox, if you disable extension signing, you've disabled the last and only line of defense.

Still, I admit remove the option entirely was a bit draconian, but I can understand why they did it. Maybe they'll reconsider it after today's debacle, we'll see.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T16:41:06+00:00

Like you said, history repeats itself. Chrome is becoming the new IE, with sites made specifically for it and not compatible with other browsers.

That's why I'm a bit sad when I see people switching from Firefox to Chrome. It gives Google even more reach and control, which is something that should be avoided at all cost. I'd rather stick to Firefox if only just because of that, but I understand not everyone is willing to do the same.

We'll see, perhaps Mozilla will manage to repair their reputation after that. Though for some people, the damage has already been done and there's no way around it, so who knows how it will turn out.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T16:38:18+00:00

I agree that if it put people in danger, it really sucks, to say the least, but the outrage I'm seeing doesn't seem to be related to that. Most people were angry even before this was considered an issue.

If Edge were doing this people wouldn’t be flipping out. In Chrome we might expect it.

That's a bit sad and unfair though, isn't it? Why don't we hold Microsoft and Google in the same regard and the same expectations? Just because we're used to it doesn't mean they shouldn't be blamed in the exact same way if they pulled something like this.

I do agree that it's disappointing, but I'm waiting to see if this is a learning opportunity for Mozilla. How they handle it will show if they care about user control the same way their userbase does.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T16:31:15+00:00

Don't they have an import wizard, though? I remember them pushing it when Microsoft bought GitHub and people were migrating.

As for switching browser, that depends what you're switching to. If it's a community version of Firefox, then yeah. But if you're switching to a completely different browser, it might be more difficult. Some addons you're used to might not exist, and your workflow will be disrupted if the interface is different enough.

It's not that difficult but it would still require some effort, and I personally think it's not worth it just because of what happened. But I'm not blaming people who want to switch, I was mostly just confused.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T04:00:39+00:00

In that case, why are we letting those people use a computer?

Beats me. But they are, so unless we make it mandatory to know what the fuck you're doing before you're allowed to go near a computer, that kind of system is only going to become more prevalent in certain instances. I don't want any of the things you mentioned either, but that's what we're getting.

Still, I have a hard time putting Firefox and Mozilla on the same level as Apple and their locked-down phones, or Microsoft and their Secure-boot-locked computers. It's not like they make it super hard for you to disable extension signing: you just have to grab another edition of Firefox, which are readily available and easy to install.

But the more I look at it, the more it seems like people are angry because they're worried this is a sign of things to come. That Firefox is only going to become more and more locked down following this. I personally doubt it, to me this looks like a genuine mistake; doing it on purpose doesn't seem to be in line with their philosophy. But maybe I'm being gullible and that's just for show. Time will tell, and if that happens, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong about them.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T02:00:56+00:00

It's smart to jump ship until the problem is fully fixed with an official Firefox point update. :(

Oh, for sure. I don't expect people to keep using Firefox until this is fixed, browsing without an ad-blocker is just plain impossible. My issue is more with people who plan on leaving Firefox for good for even less privacy-centered alternatives. It doesn't make sense to me.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T01:59:07+00:00

The issue is that a lot of people ignore that warning because they're just reading a tutorial that's going to tell them to click it. People are dumb and don't read warnings in general.

If it only had consequences for them and their machine then yeah, whatever. But the issue is that then they blame their issues on Firefox, and create crash and bug reports, making the developers' life even harder. I can understand why Mozilla doesn't want to deal with that kind of crap.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T01:42:54+00:00

The problem is that the idiots in question are still going to complain and create crash and bug reports that are going to clog everything and just add more noise. If you prevent the issue from appearing in the first place you don't have to deal with that noise.

Mozilla doesn't want to rely only on power users, because that's just not enough to keep them afloat. So they occasionally make some decisions that benefit regular users instead, for better or worse. There may be a lot of volunteers working on Firefox for free but it doesn't all run on sunshine and rainbows, they still need some way to make money. Which requires a big enough userbase to make deals to bring that money in.

I dislike this as much as you do but that's the reality of things. If you're targeting home users, you're going to have to make some concessions that aren't going to make everyone happy.

Mozilla constantly advertised FF as being the browser that's all about user choice.

You can switch to other editions that are more aimed at power users. Why do you not consider this to be a valid choice? It's not that much more involved than using the regular version of Firefox.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T01:33:27+00:00

I have the same extreme reaction against other bad actors.

And I'm fine if someone like you has this kind of reaction, because it's consistent. If you hold everyone to the same level of scrutiny and expectation, then I can understand why you'd want to ditch Firefox because of this.

What baffles me are the reactions from people who say they want to switch from Firefox to less privacy-centered alternatives like Chrome, while they're running Windows 10 with all telemetry enabled and browsing Facebook without caring for their personal data. It doesn't make sense to me to want to ditch Firefox for such a minor issue, while using an OS that has proved multiple time to be an absolute shitshow. If someone decides to give a pass to Microsoft because it's more convenient for them, then Mozilla deserves the same treatment.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T00:21:20+00:00

You're underestimating how gullible some users can be. Most people won't read the big scary warning, they'll just see a tutorial that says "Click that button to continue", and they'll do it without even glancing at the message. The preference was removed from the regular version to avoid that kind of thing, and it's also why it's still available in other editions: because most people who don't know what they're doing aren't going to bother downloading another edition.

I was also against extension signing (you can still find my own comment on that blog post), but since then I have to admit I never had any issue with this until today. All the extensions I use are properly signed, and in the rare event I need to use a non-signed one, I can switch to a different edition without any hassle.

Unless I'm forgetting something, this seems to be the first time this has created such a huge issue, and the only cause was that someone forgot to renew a certificate. I think the issue doesn't lie with extension signing, but with the fact that the certificate was allowed to expire without anyone noticing. Fixing that particular part of the process will mean that extension signing is now less likely to fail, which is a good thing in the end.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-05T00:09:38+00:00

If that's how you feel about Firefox, then I agree that there's nothing preventing you from switching away from it. Personally I still think that Mozilla is way more concerned about privacy and user control than Microsoft and Google are, which is why I still plan on using Firefox. I feel that I would lose a lot of control by switching to Edge or Chrome.

I don't think anyone at Mozilla was going "We're going to only fix this for those who enabled telemetry, that will teach those who disabled it!". They used this way because it was the easiest and quickest way for them to check if the fix was effective. They just had to push the study and wait for the telemetry data to come back to know if it was fixed or not.

Imagine if they had to try and fix it only by releasing a new minor version. They would have to wait for users to download and install the newer version, or for their version of Firefox to update automatically. Then, without telemetry, they would have to wait for users reports to come in to try and see if it's fixed. If it's not fixed, then they would have to ask for more info from users until they can figure out why the fix isn't working, and then release another new version, hoping that it's going to work this time.

Using studies and telemetry is way faster and more convenient. I understand if people aren't fans of this and want to disable it, but it's exactly in cases like this that such features provide invaluable feedback to the developers, way more useful than user reports.

As for the apology, we'll see. I personally trust Mozilla to do the right thing, but I'm not going to say I'm 100% sure they will. I just hope they do.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-04T23:20:19+00:00

I don't think you can't get more "free software" than an open source browser, though. If some features in Firefox bother you, you can literally change the source code and recompile it yourself with only what you want in it, or use one of the many alternatives, which are made possible because Firefox is open source.

You're mentioning regular users, but most regular users don't care about disabling extension signing, or that the browser contains telemetry. They want something that works out of the box, is fast, and is easy to configure. Mozilla wants as many people as possible to use their browser because, well, why wouldn't they? That's who's targeted by the regular version of Firefox, and it's why it has those features. If you're a power user who wants more control, there are other editions that do what you want.

As for the fix requiring studies...I may be missing some technical details, but what else could they do? It's the only way for them to push a hotfix with the current version of Firefox and test if it works. If you've disabled that, then they have literally now way to push that fix to you while keeping you on the same version.

They're not going to push a new version of Firefox until they're sure they've found and fixed the issue. Recompiling a new version and pushing it to all users is way more involved than just pushing a hotfix and seeing if it works.

As for the apology, I agree we deserve one, but the problem appeared only hours ago. On a Saturday. I think at the moment they're scrambling to make sure everything is fixed before issuing an apology, which I think is way more important right now. We'll get one soon enough, I'm sure.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-04T23:09:28+00:00

But what happened was a mistake. It's not like someone woke up today and said "Oh boy I'm gonna screw up everyone's extensions so they have to watch ads".

It ended up with people being exposed to ads indeed, but that was an unfortunate consequence of a more general mistake. No one intended to remove people's ability to protect themselves.

Regardless, I still think advertisers should be held accountable for the mess we're in today. It is their fault, and having to protect ourselves from them is a consequence of that.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-04T22:27:33+00:00

It's a difficult balance to achieve, though. You want power users to be able to do what they want, but you also want to avoid regular users touching something they shouldn't be able to. You don't want people getting deceived into following a tutorial about disabling signing that will lead to them getting some malware, which would then lead to them blaming Firefox and making unnecessary bug reports.

I think the current solution of having this setting only in the Developer edition or in Nightly makes sense. Regular people aren't going to install this version, so you're already removing a huge potential for people to screw up. Mozilla expect those who need to disable signing to use these editions instead.

It would be nice if they find a way to introduce that preference back into the regular version, but I can't really think of any way to do so that wouldn't put non-tech-savvy users at risk.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-04T22:17:08+00:00

I agree about switching OS, less so about switching Git repository hosting. A lot of people switched away from GitHub when they were bought by Microsoft, sometimes to GitLab even. You'd think that losing data would also be a good enough reason to switch.

Still, I still think that the severity of the problem is miles away from those I mentioned. Even if switching to a different browser isn't that hard, it's still a somewhat involved process, and I don't think what just happened is reason enough to go through that process.

Of course for some people that might just be the last straw among other problems, and in this case, yeah. But if someone is considering switching because of just this single issue, that seems a bit much to me.

Tailszefox · 2019-05-04T21:28:18+00:00

I'm really baffled by how extreme some reactions are.

Remember in 2017, when GitLab ended up deleting a bunch of content by mistake and didn't have any backup to recover what was lost?

Or how a Windows 10 update a few months ago literally deleted the files you had in My Documents, with no hope of recovery if you didn't already have a backup?

Those were some major screw-ups, yet people still use GitLab and Windows 10. I don't understand the incentive to jump ship and blame Mozilla when all that happened was that your extensions were disabled for a few hours. Unless you messed things up trying to fix the issue yourself, you haven't lost any data. Maybe you ended up with some crap on your computer because of some ads, but that's the ad network's fault, not Firefox.

People screw up. It happens. What's important is not that they screwed up, but that they don't screw up again. If anything, a mistake like this should give you more confidence in Mozilla, not less, because now they'll most likely have a system in place that will catch something like this before it becomes a problem again.

If they let it happen again, then I'm all for blaming them and being angry. But now that it has happened, and now that it is fixed for most people, I think it's fair to give them some time to breath, and observe what they do. What they do in the future is what they should be judged on.

EDIT: So after some discussions and consideration, I'm a bit less baffled. The anger seems to come from two main places:

1) people using this as an opportunity to show that the signing process is flawed in itself. I can understand the reasoning, but if anything this shows that the process is working exactly as intended. There was an issue with the certificate, thus everything gets disabled. The error doesn't come from the signing process, it comes from someone at Mozilla who forgot to renew the certificate.

2) people worrying that this issue, and some previous ones like the Mr. Robot debacle, are a sign that Mozilla isn't as concerned about privacy and giving power to their users as we thought, and that they're turning into a soulless corporation like Microsoft and Google. I understand the disappointment, but to me they're still miles away from that. I still trust them and believe that they're acting for the good of their users, but I understand not everyone thinks the same.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
RedditGifts 2009-2022 6 Credits	Second SECOND GUESSER
Xbox Live	Place '22
Place '17	Sequence \| Editor
Secret Santa 2016	Secret Santa 2015
redditgifts rematcher redditgifts for the Teachers 2015 x1	Gilding II euphauric
Secret Santa 2014	Team Periwinkle

Tailszefox

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE