InformAction Forums

What's worse is that now in order to inject user-scripts into the page, you have to put it in developer mode, which is a huge suck. TamperMonkey had to deal with that. Not sure the scope affects every extension that injects, but I think at some level it might, unless it only applies to user scripts ...

I have to agree, not a big fan of the square orange smilies either.
Thankfully, a first world problem.

Personally, I like it, clean and easy on the eyes. However, I work with a lot of people with accessibility limitations who find the reverse high contrast difficult to work with, I am sympathetic. I think we can still make the black the default, just provide an accessible option for those who don't w...

I am so sad to see it end, I absolutely loved it.

Although this may be a wrong of thinking about it, I always saw uMatrix as a combination of NS and RP blended into a cleaner single interface with more "intuitive" and "friendlier" approach. While uBlock was meant to be a general purpose blocker, not necessarily as an adblocker, ...

The granularity is because that's all it does, so agreed it has that. But nothing that can't be done using the filter panel and writing up the rules ala ABE. Basically if it can be blocked, putting aside the interface and ease of doing it by point and click, can be blocked in uBlock exactly the same...

HTTP Switchboard was the first and initial attempt at it and then got renamed to uMatrix. The functionality for blocking the scripts which is the only thing uMatrix is pretty much geared for is available in uBlock, so as a general blocker that can block anything, including scripts, why wouldn't it b...

with uBlock it is effectively moot so I can appreciate him not wanting to waste what little time and energy he's got working on something that is at best a novelty at this point, in fact if he was so inclined rolling what little specific feature remains of it into uBlock would make for a better tool...

... isn't insulting anyone. It's only descriptive of the situation. Precisely. I have no reason to insult you because that would imply it is personal and it is not, never is as I don't even know you. I still have a different opinion on that. Maybe that being overdescriptive is offending. No one is ...

While I appreciate why you are asking, the fact remains that it is very difficult and time consuming to write and maintain an archaic and deprecated codebase for those who wish to remain on a deprecated and unsafe attempt to remain in the past. Yes, I miss the original architecture too but having pa...

If the script is domain based, sure, block it and it blocks it but probably breaks the domain itself. You can use ABE to narrow it down a bit more but in this particular use case I dare say that finding the specific script and writing a uBlock filter probably works best, but that's assuming you can ...

I think Mozilla has become a mediocre wannabe and that's sad. Hell Netscape put up more of a fight to remain unique against M$ than Firefox is doing now against $00gle, it is quite pathetic but when they get paid to do it, and yet they shamelessly claim to be the most secure, privacy focused, pro us...

It was the breadcrumb method:

protocol > subdomain.domain.com > etc > etc >

where the > was the hidden portion until you clicked on it, I'll see if I can find a version that had it, you can VM it and see. It wasn't so much hide as obfuscate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Firefox try this and miserably fail at it YEARS ago? I guess Google thinks, oh the sheeple will do what we tell them, we gave them Chrome and they gave us their life on a platter, so now let's hide the shady shit we do too. So ridiculous.