The Web is pretty great with Javascript turned off

Works just fine without javascript for me

3 Likes

Yeah, know.

1 Like

Yeah,

4 Likes

Yeah,

1 Like

NoScript allows you to allow or block scripts per domain.

Useful tip: using NoScript, you can enable facebook.com and the site works perfectly, but if you disable facebook.net, it eliminates nearly every bit of facebook junk on other sites.

1 Like

I need that in US measurements. How many furlongs to a hogshead?

2 Likes

Well, that might have been funny if you weren’t using English units for length and volume and trying to apply them to acceleration.

but is it usable with all the red? and I want to know how to draw such a cool overlay without JS

3 Likes

Same sort of thing happens with Privacy Badger, in which allowing a tracker reveals others that it either blocks them entirely or their cookies. Usually I try to identify the one which blocks the thing I want to watch or listen to, but in those cases, I just resort to temporary disabling it.

I’m assuming that what scripts NoScript doesn’t cover in “all scripts” ended up in the “untrusted” blacklist. As for other reasons, there have been situations where I found that a rule in HTTPS Everywhere essentially broke a site, but encounters with that are few and the EFF are usually good at updating the rule set.

Fuck sketchy ad networks, corporate vampires and black hats, man. We’ve juuuust recovered from the “javascript == popups” era, and can finally make fun-to-code, fun-to-use user interfaces. I hope ad blockers are able to go mainstream with an easy switch for “block everything sketchy, whitelist everything fun and convenient” that prevent a second dark age of UI. Sure, not every Tom-Dick-and-Harry site needs jquery UI drag and drop, but client-side animation and interactivity can make complex ideas/interfaces more grokkable and tactile.

#notallscripts

1 Like

It’s a buck three eighty to say your Inuit penny dollar. Hope that helps.

How do I stop the latest firefox releases breaking extensions that I rely on for the sake of my mental health?

I’m speaking specifically to CDNs for things like JQuery, etc, that could be hosted locally but which it makes more sense to link from a CDN, so your browser caches it once for all the different sites that need to use it. Functional libraries without which the site will not work, much of the time.

Convince your extension author not to rely on features that they’ve been told not to use?

I don’t know, really. None of the extensions I use (uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, others) break with every release. In fact, I’ve only had one extension break, at all, in the last year or year and a half and that’s one that hasn’t been updated in three years so something finally broke it.

And thats another crashed space probe.

1 Like

The author is me, and the feature I have been told not to use is not having the extension verified and signed by Mozilla. It’s a bit excessive for something that is for my personal use only.

Oh, so you aren’t complaining about things “breaking.” You’re complaining about “new signing requirements.”

If it is for personal use, right now, you can turn off the signature requirements in about:config on your personal Firefox.

As to why it is being required, that has been hashed to death in various places but basically you can thank malware, search hijackers, and other bad actors. Mozilla decided that, like Chrome, some review was necessary for addons for the hundreds of millions of people that will just click on anything and install it.

And this is why we can’t have nice things.

1 Like

Adblock has settings to globally allow “non-intrusive” ads, and you can whitelist any site.