source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-military-tested-device-that-...

I hear you though, clickbait gonna clickbait.

"Chen Jinping, 60, of New York, New York, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to act as an illegal agent of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC),"[2]

The films weren't just pulled - the festival was cancelled.[3]

Sources:

1: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...

2: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/new-york-resident-pl...

3: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/07/indiechina-ind...

anyone so unhinged that they can't comprehend the value in not publicly attacking subsets of the population you might need to cooperate with, eventually becomes a liability for everyone.

It's still interesting to contrast my personal experience re: Firefox with everyone elses when it comes to the "Manifest V3 ! Abandon ship, but to where?" conversation.

I can remember a single time I had to swap to Chrome for something, and it was three years ago, and involved some flavor of WebAssembly, I believe.

If anyone can point out a current website that is acting up under Firefox and not Chrome, please post it. I just want want to know that the "Firefox is inferior" argument isn't a decade old echo.

Eventually, there will be an overstep that make enough capable people mad, and those people will get together and make/mod something better.

The reasoning is obvious, and "plausible deniability" is not enough to give Google charity. The more difficult you make it to block ads, the more impressions, and the more money made. Yet you believe people should be "charitable" to the same company that can't hire the manpower to defend their own users against bad faith DCMA takedown notices. Because they ran the analysis, and it wasn't worth the cost.

Best case scenario, Chromium loses market share, implements the parts removed from V2, Google likely kicks the can down the road to Manifest V4.

There's no reason to believe companies deserve charitability. Companies are systems designed to extract maximum value, and when the world around that system changes, the system adjusts itself. It's not the systems fault for trying to get more value, it's our fault for letting them.

Can someone in this thread who have swapped between Firefox/Chrome explain the problems they run into ultimately driving them back to Chrome?

In 1997, when America Online went from an hourly rate to unlimited hours for $20/month. Besides adult ads, I remember a lot of "work from home/get rich quick" ads - and that's all I can personally remember. Almost every forum and community I can remember were serious labors of love, especially the early "hacker" communities. But, we lost that internet a long time ago. I, personally, would love for an internet that could emulate those early years of being able to log in, communicate, and make friends with random, sometimes sketchy, weirdos, all within 45 seconds of dialing up. There weren't algorithms that decided who was important and who wasn't, you just had your words and wits.

That was a tangent, but my point is - would the internet improve or decline if there was a serious "adpocalypse"?

https://marketplace.appdirect.com/en-US/apps/345798/office-l...

I'm not bitter, you're bitter! :)

For products that won't be scaled, I imagine it becomes just another abstraction layer, with the cost of human input outweighing the cost of the additional infrastructure / beefing up hardware to support the inefficiencies created.