That’s up to 30K dynamic rules, at least 30K static rules, and at least 1K regex rules: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/declarativeNetRequest#property-GUARANTEED_MINIMUM_STATIC_RULES

That seems like it’s fine for general use, and those limits might go up again. EasyList and the other big lists can be consolidated to varying degrees with Chrome’s rules format, and there’s probably some dead rules in there. uBlock Origin on Firefox will definitely be more versatile moving forward, but every time I’ve used uBlock Origin Lite in Chrome it’s almost the same experience.

I haven’t run into that issue with Firefox on my M1 MacBook Air. Maybe try the Firefox reset feature, it’s possible some extension or other user data is breaking something and needs to be wiped.

If you like this article, please consider following the site on Mastodon/Fedi, email, or RSS. It helps me get information like this out to a wider audience :)

If you like this article, please consider following the site on Mastodon/Fedi, email, or RSS. It helps me get information like this out to a wider audience :)

If you like this article, please consider following the site on Mastodon/Fedi, email, or RSS. It helps me get information like this out to a wider audience :)

If you like this article, please consider following the site on Mastodon/Fedi, email, or RSS. It helps me get information like this out to a wider audience :)

The article talks about Firefox too.

Adblock users are still a statistical minority of web users. Most people don’t care (as evidenced by Netflix’s ad tier gaining subscribers every quarter) or don’t know those extensions exist.

Except the part where it didn’t imply that at all?

That performance cost seems to be negligible in uBlock Origin and other popular ad blockers that have focused on optimization (uBO has an explainer wiki page), but there were probably other extensions not doing that well. It’s not hard to see a situation where multiple poorly-optimized extensions installed using the Web Request API could dramatically slow down Chrome, and the user would have no way of knowing the issue.

What specifically is “google propaganda and fear mongering” in the article?

I mean, there’s a difference between not reading an article, and several people arguing back and forth over the article that none of them have read. Reddit and Lemmy people do a lot of the latter.

This might not be Reddit, but the Reddit behavior is still here.

There aren’t actual numbers because you can’t poll for that. There’s not a database somewhere that keeps track of every teacher or manager that says “ew” when someone brings up GIMP. There are some documented examples, though, some of which are listed in the article.

Yeah, the destructive editing and lack of a content aware fill is made me stop using it and go back to Photoshop. Krita also seems more usable these days in the FOSS world. The name is a lot easier to fix than those missing features, though.

Right, ultimately it’s their project and they can do what they want, but it’s also their loss every time some person or organization skips it because of the name.

No, it was named after the character, GIMP is a reverse acronym:

It took us a little while to come up with the name. We knew we wanted an image manipulation program like Photoshop, but the name IMP sounded wrong. We also tossed around XIMP (X Image Manipulation Program) following the rule of when in doubt prefix an X for X11 based programs. At the time, Pulp Fiction was the hot movie and a single word popped into my mind while we were tossing out name ideas. It only took a few more minutes to determine what the ‘G’ stood for.

Those points are addressed in the article. It’s not an issue for a lot of people, but it’s still an issue.

I didn’t buy those adapters, I just used a computer that had a FireWire 400 port. I haven’t found any evidence of those direct USB cables working with old iPods.

I’m not quite that young.

Yep, never tried to hide that.