- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- technology@beehaw.org
You must log in or # to comment.
So am I wrong in assuming that the guy who wrote this article, is also the same person who posted the article here? Because they are both named Corbin.
I’m the author, yes.
Cool. The top comment is particularly brutal in its opinion on your work, care to respond?
Already did! I don’t think it was brutal, just asking technical questions.
I think they were talking about this comment: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/6264541
It seems like it didn’t propagate to infosec.hub.
Ah yeah, that one didn’t show up on my server. That’s just an opinion about the overall situation, not disproving anything I said.
That image was definitely made by AI, lol.
It does say “Credit: Microsoft Designer / DALL-E 3”
“Credit: Prompt Engineer/ DALL-E 3”
deleted by creator
The limit for dynamic rules is 30K (for basic block/allow) + 5K for more complex blocking, plus a minimum of 60K more for static complex rules: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#property-GUARANTEED_MINIMUM_STATIC_RULES
I agree the original article/quote was probably just worded weird and not being malicious. The issue is more all of the other articles that picked up on that with the wrong interpretation, as many outlets have through the whole Manifest V3 situtation.
deleted by creator
I kinda agree, the whole adblocking space has felt very circle-jerky lately. Tech news writers are just cashing in on the hype with low quality articles. That said, even if google is not technically locking down adblockers, this does tend to be the first step towards killing such a thing. Its kinda the unspoken implication of the whole conversation
Also, considering you are criticizing clickbait-y tech articles, you should probably stay away from clickbait.
