Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | aceofspad3s's commentslogin

>The UC Browser app takes up 31 megabytes of space, compared with Chrome’s 125 megabytes

Given that bundling Chrome is a requirement if you want to ship a mobile phone with the Play Store, this is a moot point


Several devices I've bought in the last few years (mostly cheap ones of chinese manufacture), did not include Google Play; they mostly encouraged either Aptoide or 1Mobile Market. Heck, that's part of why I keep F-Droid on my phone now.


Firefox is much slower than Chrome on Android, at least on my (reasonably powerful) Qualcomm 625


Firefox with uBlock installed gives a much faster overall experience on my device compared to using Google Chrome. Ads have become such a nightmare on mobile sites.


When did you last try it? If it was anything more than a month ago you might want go give it another spin, and/or try a Beta or Nightly build, as the Quantum revamps aren't all enabled yet in the stable channel of the Android edition.


I'm pretty happy with Firefox Focus on a Moto G3. Some people may not like the lack of features in that browser however, e.g. no history, no cookies saved, etc.


> Some people may not like the lack of features in that browser however, e.g. no history, no cookies saved, etc.

That's kind of the point of Focus, it's meant to be a private browser. You can also get regular Firefox with uBlock Origin to have a similar experience with these features, if this annoys you.


Interesting.

I've found in terms of speed: Opera > Firefox > Chrome. I suspect it is due primarily to ads.


Good thing about this is that those users are poor so most developers are free to ignore them.


Funny how people said that about China in the 70s.

Those who are last will later be first.


Maybe they shouldn't have started merging the patches in the open if they weren't ready to disclose the bug.


The default subs of reddit are utter garbage, but the rest of stuff is not that bad.


I agree. Anything you can recommend aside from programmerHumor?


Really depends on your interests. I frequent several programming language/platform specific and photography subs, plus r/mechanicalkeyboards, and several from my local area.

Reddit's multisub feature makes grouping them easy (so I visit six places instead of 40).


The ones I frequent include financialindependence, headphones, coffee, mealprepsunday, running, bicycling. They all tend to cater to their audience fairly well.


/r/netsec


As a user, I can't think of any ads that would make me happy.

As an unattractive person, I wouldn't want to see unattractive people in ads either. Seeing fat people wouldn't make me happier.

(Why was this thread collapsed?)


Notice how you equate fat with unattractive?


Yes because fat people are physically unattractive. Not only are they unattractive aesthetically, it’s just unhealthy and that’s far more of a factor in my opinion.

My biological instinct is to find a mate who has the highest probability of successfully reproducing. So even in this regard, someone healthy fits the bill over someone unhealthy any day. Healthy people live longer, are able to more successfully reproduce and have less complications in general.

Now should fat people in society be treated worse in terms of the opportunities they have? Absolutely not. But should society reward people for being fat? In my opinion, no, not explicitly.

Being unhealthily fat is just as abnormal as being unhealthyily skinny. Normalizing either is probably misguided at best.


> Yes because fat people are physically unattractive. Not only are they unattractive aesthetically, it’s just unhealthy and that’s far more of a factor in my opinion.

I think you’re wrong; bigger folks can totally be attractive. That they are unattractive to you is different.


We can go back and forth on the aesthetics, but the health aspects are what ground us in natural reality and are probably why the norms played out like they did.

Again, representing the extremes as norms is not great - I think we can both agree on this point at least. But if there was an ideal that I would rather society value - it would definitely err on the side of healthy and fit.


Skinny doesn’t equal healthy and fit and most of the models you see on ads like this aren’t exactly healthy! Yeah, they watch their intake and work out a lot, but taking anabolic steroids/insulin/growth hormone/you name it and/or reducing your intake to something unmaintanable per day doesn’t exactly lead to a long life.

Also, many women have to work much harder than men to stay on the skinny side because they store fat easier. A 5’1” 110 lb woman with 18% body fat would need to eat 1500 cal/day to maintain that weight. That’s practically nothing! It’s harder still if you were raised in a family that encouraged overeating (several reasons behind this).

Then there’s the double standard that exists in many relationships where the woman needs to be “healthy and fit” at all times while the man can treat his body however he wants because practically nobody cares about an out-of-shape looking man.

I say look however you want and weigh however much you feel comfortable with. One life to live and all.


I completely agree with you on all counts actually! I don't think "skinny" is the goal to aim for either and isn't attractive to me personally on either gender. But by that definition "Fat" is an extreme too. I think we both might just be arguing semantics at this point.

In any case, I mostly agree with everything you've written.


Awesome!


> are probably why the norms played out like they did.

Cheap food is why the norms played out like they did. In places with less easy access to calories, fat is considered beautiful and thin ugly.


I think you raise a very valid point and there are a probably ton of other factors that I’m not even aware of that go into this.

I’ll throw another othrogonal point into the mix: our definitions of “skinny” and “fat” are probably very different and very relative to our realities.

Anyway, I don’t claim to have the answers - it gets really messy to articulate the big question of “how do values form”.


Fat people are unattractive. I am fat and I am physically unattractive because of that. Thinking otherwise would be fooling myself.

Being attracted to fat people is a kink, not the norm.


I'm not attracted to fat people. I'm attracted to attractive people. And there are, amazingly, attractive fat people, despite the cultural norm we've internalized.


I said PHYSICALLY attractive.


In different times and in different cultures, fat people have been considered physically attractive and thinner/slimmer people considered unattractive. Now we live in a globalized world where many aspirations are sold wholesale across cultures and acceptance is manufactured to make it look like the norm.


And I still assert it's a cultural norm that barrages of advertisement like this reinforce.


> Being attracted to fat people is a kink, not the norm.

Norms of attractiveness are social constructs that demonstrably change over time.


Not defending the gp's harsh tone, but there's nothing particularly interesting about this post. We all know how ad algorithms are stupidly repetitive and how ads only show attractive people. This is just flamebait.


But we don't all realize the effect this shit is having. And if we did, we wouldn't be reacting so non-chalant about it. I think it's an interesting post, and it's a more nuanced criticism than just "too many repetitive ads with attractive people."


Funny that this thread was censored (i.e. collapsed) without any apparent reason.

Myself I also believe this to be the case. Vandals don't just burn 50 beehives. And the fact that the farm says this is vandalism, instead of wondering "how is it possible that vandals destroyed 50 beehives for no reason", just reinforces my suspicion.


Using a microkernel just pushes the vulnerabilities to the userspace.


Yes. That is part of the idea. So the vulnerability is isolated and does not automatically compromise the entire system.


Who cares? In consumer devices, userspace is the entire system.


Well, not in i.e Android.

For example, I have an app that has a vulnerability (let's say my alarm app accidentally runs unauthorized code). What can it do? Nothing. It can't read from my banking app, it can't get my SSH keys, it may not even be able to read from my SD card.

But what happens when my Linux kernel is also compromised? Any app can get root.


It's not just one userspace. Fuchsia is capabilities-oriented, when apps are sandboxed by default and only get access to the services it has been granted access to.


OP's tweet is about the iOS app.


then apply it to a router?


It only works if the router is also the DNS resolver, and if the resolver uses /etc/hosts as a source.


Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: