When it was released, Chrome was revolutionary. Sandboxing individual tabs into their own processes was a stroke of genius. Until then, if a single site ate up all your memory and crashed your browser, all your tabs/sites died and you had to start again.
It really was the best browser for a hot minute before others copied the idea.
Given that you managed to miss what I said, I'll reiterate: I know about Linux. Pretty-much everyone here knows about Linux. Evangalising about Linux is not useful. I've been running it, and making my living off my knowledge of Linux for over 25 years. At home, I have four computers and three of them exclusively run variants of Linux.
This is kind of intellectually dishonest don’t you think? It both ignores the fact that Linux runs on the majority of hardware and invites us to pretend that Linux users are constantly buying random windows machines and hoping they work.
No. You literally said "Nope I just buy supported hardware and software that works without difficulty which I’ve been doing since 2003." in response to the very valid issue raised that Windows has better hardware support. I personally happen to disagree with that statement, I think the hardware support for older hardware in particular is much better in Linux than Windows. But for newer hardware, Windows drivers come before Linux drivers for very obvious reasons.
I also need to use Windows for work. My primary workstation runs Windows. This isn't a matter of preference. There are many valid reasons for running Windows. And because of that, this headline is relevant to many people here.
And now you've gone from 'Install an alternate OS' to 'Buy a new computer that supports an alternate OS'.
We get it. Linux exists. I doubt there is a single Lemmy user who is unaware that Linux is a thing. We are already using it or have valid reasons to not be using it.
Some of us require Windows to do our work.
When I say "It's on my radar", it means "yes, I am going to do this, but wait your turn".
There is also "As discussed" meaning "We spoke about this already, but I need this as proof"
If I’m not mistaken, the “tinkering” necessary in uBlock Origin would take much less than the time you took to type out your comment.
I did not say that applying today's partiucar fix would take hours. For however long this fix works works. I said "people would rather spend hours of their time tinkering with settings instead." Of course I use ublock myself, the web is appalling without it.
As to the price of beer, that may be an Australian thing. But if you manage to get a schooner (425ml/15 oz) at a public bar here for less than $10, you're probably drinking something crap.
You have a point, but the problem goes far beyond ads vs. no ads. There is definitely a lot of controversy, and you simplify choose not to see it, but don’t try to act like everyone else is just too dumb or too poor to see things your way when neither of those are true.
I see what people are complaining about. They're acting like they are being forced to visit the website. A website that sits behind one of the largest and most responsive network/web clusters on the planet. A website that is somehow referencing over an Exabyte of storage, geographically redundant and presumabely being backed up. I work in this industry, on a network with over 1,000 servers and my mind boggles at how much infrastructure that takes. I couldn't begin to estimate what is behind that simple YouTube web front page.
Somehow, the controversy is that Google has the gall to want to recoup some of these costs. It costs a fortune for just the hardware. Then add the bandwidth. Then somehow they're paying content creators to put popular videos on the platform. And they offer it all to you for free in return for watching some ads. Or alternatively, you pay $10 to not watch ads.
Is pepperidge farms a real product? I thought it was a Simpsons reference.
Now I hope they were the ones behind the meme.
This is not what is happening. Google offers you a tier with advertising for free. If you'd prefer to not have the ads, you can pay a small fee, get no ads and also steam every song ever. I truly don't see the controversy.
It's literally cheaper than a beer for a full month of this service, but people would rather spend hours of their time tinkering with settings instead. Personally, I don't have that kind of time.
I am not medical at all, so don't take me as any kind of expert. But it would have been Pfizer - the first shot 40-somethings in Australia received. Is that one even mRNA based?
There is genuinely a small percentage of the population who is severely allergic to the vaccine. It happened to someone I know. She didn't die of course - but yeah, was in hospital for a while and couldn't take the subsequent shots after that first one. It was pretty rough.
Happily, the vaccines were administered in the presence of health professionals with a proper plan in-place especially to deal with these cases. They're aren't jabbing people with cow medicine they bought off the black market in their own back yards.
It is frightfully expensive to host video content. YouTube would cost Billions per year to run.