deryilz

The Swift Book is good for this:

https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/documentation/the-swift-pr...

If you're going to put it in a bag for a week, why not use some kind of hibernation feature?

As another commenter said, sometimes upgrades require manual intervention. You can fix this using a tool like informant which shows you all the interventions you have to do before you upgrade.

Also, you can use a tool like snapper + btrfs-assistant (both of which come pre-installed on Cachy IIRC) which lets you fully revert your filesystem (snapper rollback) or partially (snapper undochange) if something breaks. Just make sure to use a btrfs filesystem for that.

No adblocking extension would ever rely on a clear bug to function. Google reviews extension code and would immediately patch the bug, and maybe use it as an excuse to kick the extension off the web store. I don't buy the idea that there was a viable second option here.

Dude, what.

Also, dude, from your other comments: "What a selfish dickhead, helping them make better nooses to put around everyone's necks (including his own)."

And "People like this are enemies of freedom and should be called out publicly."

What the ?

Hi, I appreciate your opinion, but really disagree. First of all, this is one bug, and most of the ones I find don't "act against user's interests" (not that this one could have been used effectively without being patched anyway). Doing bug finding is how I make a difference and a skill I feel proud of.

I USED to keep bugs (read: exploits) for myself without sharing them, but after a while I realized it was not worth it and my skills were basically going to waste. You can say philosophical stuff about ads if you want but bug finding for me is a fun challenge with a good community. I'm not pretending Google is my best friend.

Plus, doing this gets me a bit of money. It's either this or I work summers at a grocery store, and I prefer this.

I think the trouble is that certain adblocking features (like skipping ads on YouTube, Twitch, etc) require modifying the page you're viewing in your browser; just filtering network requests isn't enough. So right now a browser extension is the most natural choice for an adblocker, but honestly that might change if browsers keep being so hostile towards them.

Yeah, this was my thought process. I get the appeal, but I don't think a million-user open-source extension is gonna start relying on a clear bug to function.

Unfortunately extensions can't have webview perms :(

From my experience (as a Brave user), using a User-Agent switching extension and setting it to Firefox for twitch.tv gets around that :)

I agree that would change things but I can't picture an open-source extension with millions of users pivoting to rely on something that's clearly a bug.

Author here, thank you! A lot of the comments here are more general arguments about MV3 and Google (which I kinda expected) but I'm glad see someone who liked my post :)

Author here, sorry. I don't think any open-source extension (especially large adblockers with millions of users) could actually get away with using this bug, because Google is paying close attention to them. It would've been patched immediately either way.

Sometimes you get $0, sometimes you get more. I would like to mention this stuff on my college applications, and even if I tried to gatekeep it, it'd eventually be patched. Not sure what your argument is here.

I'm quite liking the syntax, especially the !> operator.

It's always great to see interactive posts. I also appreciated the list of where Bloom filters were used in popular programs.

True, but I don't think K12 students are the main targets of these big gray-hat companies that buy bugs for a lot of money.

Keep in mind it's a ChromeOS only bug. They regularly get less money, because not that many people use ChromeOS.