1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46843805

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006

3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47474255

Scare prompt fatigue is real. If you're constantly blasting users with "XXX wants to do Y" which sounds scary, you're training them to just accept without thinking.

"Please stop looking at all network requests, especially when you don't need to."

doesn't result in action... while:

"You can no longer look at all network requests" requires extension makers to update to the new paradigm.

Google has no shortage of options for serving up ads that can't be blocked by normal ad blockers across all their properties (youtube, search, etc.). They in-line the ads these days! And if they really cared about the fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that even install any kind of adblocker, they could make the served ad content un-blockable by serving it the exact same as the content.

If you don't like what a browser is doing, then move to another one? You're acting like you have spent a tonne of money on buying Chrome. Even if that was the case, it's not a clear case of an anti-user behaviour. There is a good reason to deprecate the webRequest API, and we'll see more browsers move towards that in the future (Safari has had declarative blocking for many years now, I believe).

>preventing modifications (and thus also repairs) is anti-competitive

There is nothing stopping someone from forking a manifest v2 version and maintaining it. I'd argue this can't be compared to any company actually doing anti-competitive things (e.g. tractor company, printers, ice cream machine companies, etc.)

Well that's what is in contention. Does everything claiming to be an adblocker really need access to *? Is Adblocker5++ (totally not malware) entitled to as much access as uBlock Origin? You can declare upfront all the URLs you don't want accessed (which on top of security gives a substantial performance boost), and who's to say someone won't figure out a better way of working within these constraints?

uBlock Origin via declarative blocks is almost as powerful as the original. While I would trust gorhill with almost unfettered control over my browser, I don't trust EVERY extension owner (no do I trust uBlock Origin in perpetuity).

Loudness might be subjective, but if we're trying to compare builds, they should at least be in the same ballpark.

Looking at this article, they seem to only care about one dimension of this product: cost. It would have been far more interesting if they explored: cost, performance, size, heat (by proxy of power consumption), and loudness.

Those rates are still cheaper than some datacentres charge in parts of the world.

It's impossible to prove a negative. They could all be running secondary scrapers using malware proxies... but what we do have is plenty of evidence of them using fixed IP pools with appropriate user agents. I don't see any Chinese user agents... so two guesses who may be driving the bulk of these AI scraper requests via residential proxies.

First option:

* 35 litre case (~10 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~250W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 32-36 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

Second option:

* 35 litre case (~10 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~285W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 32-36 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

Third option:

* 19.2 litre case (~5.5 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~295W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 34-38 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)

Fourth option:

* 19.2 litre case (~5.5 times bigger than the SteamMachine) * ~275W power draw (vs. ~185W SteamMachine) * 32-35 dBA (vs. ~23 dBA SteamMachine)