One of the things that I like about Firefox is that it lets you right click on websites that disable right clicking by holding down shift. Reminds you that the browser should be the user's agent and not the website's.
This is great, but... As the meme goes, "why do we even have that lever" to disable a mouse click? More evidence that browsers are out of control, and have given over way too much agency to web developers. If a user doesn't want to right click on a page, they can just... not right click. Why does the developer even have a say?
> As the meme goes, "why do we even have that lever" to disable a mouse click?
So that web pages can implement their own behaviors for right-click, e.g. web applications which have their own contextual menus, games which use right click as an input, remote desktops which pass right click to the remote host, etc.
We actually need the override right-click functionality in some cases. Most of the abused functionality had some normal use case at some point. It's a shame that bad actors make everyone's life harder.
It's about allowing a custom right click action more than just disabling it. There are plenty of use cases for making a custom action happen on right click. Google Docs adds a custom menu on right click. Games often have a use case for right clicking.
This one's niche, but Firefox's dev tools also let web developers see which font is actually being used. Chrome's dev tools only show you what font is supposed to be in use, but doesn't tell you if it had to resort to a fallback font.
Or Ctrl+h for history. I'm looking at you Google Docs. I really don't understand why websites are allowed to override browser shortcuts and there is no way to block it.
The current meta for disabling right click seems to be invisible but tangible divs on top of the thing you don't want people to right-click.
... maybe they could add something like ctrl-shift-rightclick to get the context menu on the topmost visible element, and then we can get into more stupid arms races about opacity levels or something...
(I'm not actually familiar with the issue but I imagine if they're "clever" enough to block CTRL+F, they probably also block CTRL+L which is supposed to change the focus to the URL bar. So in the end you have to resolve to using the mouse after all...)
I doubt they care that you’re switching to the address bar, my guess is that most people don’t know the above trick that switching to the browser chrome allows you to get around ctrl+f hijacking.
It is an awful experience indeed. I switched to Kiwi browser when Chrome forced tab groups on everyone with no option to disable it. Kiwi has add-on support and removes many of Chrome's annoying aspects. I could never go back to browsing on mobile without add-ons like uBlock Origin and Sticky Ducky.
New Reddit also messes with text selection with unnecessary JS crap. Wherever you select some text, they show an "Embed" button that prevents you from dragging the text to a new tab to perform a web search.
Thankfully this behaviour can be blocked with uBlock Origin by adding these rules:
> dragging the text to a new tab to perform a web search
I had no idea that this worked. I don't "get" intentionally dragging if there's any alternative.
I feel like one of those people who tells people that frowning takes more muscles than smiling, but: dragging seems like it requires so many more muscles to be engaged than the keyboard shortcuts for copy/newtab/paste and then enter.
The way I see it, it's a feature that exists which some people use and prefer. Breaking it (intentionally or accidentally) just isn't something I want to see.
Ha, different strokes for different folks I guess.
Usually when I'm reading something, my hands are off the keyboard and I use one hand to scroll with the mouse. In this scenario, it's so much easier to double-click to select a word and drag it to a new tab instead of reaching for the keyboard.
I totally get that. I had to check what my muscle memory would do in that situation. (Apparently) I select text, right-click, and then choose "search for <selected phrase>" from the context menu.
I see it as marketing that tries to make you feel like you want the browser, without telling you what actually makes it great. You can attract users with hype and FOMO, but I'm not sure how long those users will stay...
I think they show different buttons depending on your platform. If you visit from a mobile browser, it shows a "Get download link" button which asks for your email.
They presumably do this so that people can download it later from desktop using the emailed link. It's easy to mistake it as an attempt to harvest email IDs. The website could definitely use some text which indicates that it's Mac only at the moment.
> The contract between Freenom and the Malinese government that gave Freenom technical control over the domain extension and give out the domains for free, has expired on Monday July 17. The contract was not renewed, which means that the control of the .ml domain extension is returned back to the government of Mali.
Not a solution, but somewhat related: https://youglish.com/ lets you search YouTube videos for keywords, but the purpose is to find examples of how to pronounce words from real usage. It also works for a few other languages aside from English.
High achievers are often burdened by the weight of expectations, and the pressure to live up to a certain brand name. Their goals and ambition are often not their own, but have been hijacked along the way by people around them and society in general. They don't always realise this themselves, but somewhere along the way they discover that it's easier to let go and find ways to escape the pressure.
Sometimes, the failure that results from this "self-sabotage" can be a good thing. It can lead to the shattering of assumptions [1] about how the world works, allowing people to redefine their self-worth, and letting them be more in tune with their own capabilities and goals without being encumbered by societal expectations.
Social networks and platforms that people use to talk to each other should never have been dominated by profit-seeking businesses in the first place. Federated alternatives like Lemmy and Kbin that put community interests first look promising, and could very well be the future.
Before the web 2.0 style social networks we had community forums, frequently run on phpBB or some other BBS forum tool (before that Usenet, before that... actual dialup BBS systems).
My point is that while most were not profit driven, the VC profit models of myspace, Facebook, et al. attracted massive investment that enabled a much wider reach and therefore a superior network effect and accessibility. Suddenly you could tweet at your favorite celebrities or businesses and they might respond, and in many cases we found this a fair trade for occasional advertising.
From what I can see the advantage of Lemmy is that you can use the same login across multiple forums that are independently operated with minimal central control, and you can take your reputation with you as you move between forums. Hypothetically, like the old days, some could be profit driven while others are fully community supported.
This model does seem to offer many advantages, so long as they can continue to match the accessibility and performance of the centralized social networks.
>Social networks and platforms that people use to talk to each other should never have been dominated by profit-seeking businesses in the first place.
Well, someone needs to pay for the infrastructure needed to run those platforms, I don't think that relying on donations is a good long term strategy, especially when the platforms grows. Also, having knowledge of people's opinions, preferences, likes and dislikes sure attracts some people.
>Federated alternatives like Lemmy and Kbin that put community interests first look promising, and could very well be the future.
I am not sure about this one, federated social networks may have the same community divided across multiple instances, but maybe someone could implement a client which allows you to group communities from multiple instances under one label? This sounds like a reasonable solution to me but I don't know much about the inner workings of federated social platforms.
Firefox lets you pop out the video feeds of call participants, so you can have them in a corner when sharing a full-screen window.