![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
Who knew that removing functionality and limiting access to your product was the path to social media success.
This is a secondary account. My main account is listed below. The main will have a list of all the accounts that I use.
Who knew that removing functionality and limiting access to your product was the path to social media success.
This is why I use Firefox! For freedom.
Great, now implement modern exploit mitigations and sandboxing like Chrome uses. Firefox is objectively less resistant to exploitation. Some Firefox security has improved since the article was written, such as some sandboxing on Windows, but it’s definitely not as mature.
I’m not writing that Firefox is insecure. Security is very important to Firefox! However, Chrome has had more work done in the realm of browser hardening.
They do, but Chrome is actively trying to remove support for most advanced ad-blocking capabilities. Further, Google has no financial incentive to make their browser hospitable to ad blockers as Google makes most of their money from advertising.
Google has pushed some half-baked ideas for how the web could work without having to block ads. Ad blocks aren’t best buddies with Google.
Is this basically Ubuntu?
They do intentionally hold back packages based on a random value to do gradual rollouts. See below:
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1431940/what-are-phased-updates-and-why-does-ubuntu-use-them
Could this be your issue?