In many jurisdictions in the US, there is a requirement for the casino and lottery operators to pay a certain percentage (typically 90+%) back as winnings.
Do health insurance companies have to follow similar requirements? If so, individual cases of insurances denying insurance would be bad, but would indicate that the overall system is still working reasonably well.
I do not think Tor necessarily requires 3 hops. See https://tor.stackexchange.com/a/497. It's just that 3 hops provide significant incremental benefit over 2 hops.
Right, but what Google did was to slow down only the non-AMP ads. If the goal was to build a better user experience, they should have slowed ALL the ads.
The challenge is that the notification acceptance rate is so low on mobile devices that it makes it meaningless to implement such features [1]. Practically, user is most likely to accept notifications from sites that they interact with a lot. Those also happen to be the sites whose app user is willing to install. Thus, the notification feature on web is not something that a lot of users require.
> This is a reasonable feature to exist on the web platform
Not really? [1] indicates that notification prompts actually result in users navigating away from webpages clearly demonstrating that this is a user hostile feature.
As a user, I think what's holding back web is not the lack of APIs but how much web and browsers have repeatedly ignored user preferences, and optimized for tracking and ads.
Go to any news website and it contains tons of trackers trying to fingerprint you. Then, of course, they also have to show you tons of ads leaving at most 30% of the viewport to read any content. The web is user-hostile.
And the leading browser (i.e., Chrome) has not really done anything to solve this problem. While Safari had cache partitioning enabled for 5+ years, Chrome has still to deliver it to users even though it's a clear privacy and security win. Not just that, Chrome repeatedly keeps making decisions that hurt user's privacy and expectations [1][2][3][4].
One simple rule of thumb that I use to compare Safari and Chrome is that Safari cares about users (privacy, gating out APIs that have risk of being misued for fingerprinting), while Chrome cares about web developers (trackers, ads, More powerful APIs). As a user, my expectations align better with the former model. I would be happy if Chrome took a step back, acknowledge user's expectations and focus on progressing the privacy on the web instead of engaging in twitter wars.
As a user, I think what's holding back web is not the lack of APIs but how much web and browsers have repeatedly ignored user preferences, and optimized for tracking and ads.
Go to any news website and it contains tons of trackers trying to fingerprint you. Then, of course, they also have to show you tons of ads leaving at most 30% of the viewport to read any content. The web is user-hostile.
And the leading browser (i.e., Chrome) has not really done anything to solve this problem. While Safari had cache partitioning enabled for 5+ years, Chrome has still to deliver it to users even though it's a clear privacy and security win. Not just that, Chrome repeatedly keeps making decisions that hurt user's privacy and expectations [1][2][3][4].
One simple rule of thumb that I use to compare Safari and Chrome is that Safari cares about users (privacy, gating out APIs that have risk of being misued for fingerprinting), while Chrome cares about web developers (trackers, ads, More powerful APIs). As a user, my expectations align better with the former model. I would be happy if Chrome took a step back, acknowledge user's expectations and focus on progressing the privacy on the web instead of engaging in twitter wars.
Can anybody explain why Chromium tech writer chose to sprinkle "up to" everywhere in the numbers? For example: "we’ve improved browser responsiveness by up to 9%".
This makes the article so confusing to read. Does it mean browser responsiveness improved by 0.1% on average, and in some very edge case, it improved by 9%?
Do health insurance companies have to follow similar requirements? If so, individual cases of insurances denying insurance would be bad, but would indicate that the overall system is still working reasonably well.