←back to thread

All extensions disabled due to expiration of intermediate signing cert

(bugzilla.mozilla.org)
1318 points xvector | 3 comments | 04 May 19 01:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Chirael ◴[04 May 19 03:19 UTC] No.19824201[source]▶
Just discovered the same message in the Tor browser, and it seems that NoScript got disabled. So people running Tor are a lot more vulnerable right now.

Also, wow, the web has a ton of ads. I've been running uBlock origin so long I forgot how bad it had gotten :(

replies(9): >>19824208 #>>19824291 #>>19824333 #>>19824345 #>>19824397 #>>19825657 #>>19826085 #>>19826417 #>>19827286 #
mrep ◴[04 May 19 04:13 UTC] No.19824397[source]▶
> Also, wow, the web has a ton of ads. I've been running uBlock origin so long I forgot how bad it had gotten :(

Try turning it off. I got rid of ublock after arstechnica complained about a lot of their users blocking ads years ago and it honestly isn't that bad. Every once in a while I do back out of a page for maxing out one of my cpu cores but otherwise, nothing ever bad happens. With ads: either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website.

The alternative is websites charging insane amounts of money with paywalls (Wall street journal has their "best" price for 12 months at $360 a year). That is horrible because it means only rich people can pay for high quality news as ads are one of the most progressive forms of payment (rich people ads are way more valuable than poor peoples and yet everyone gets the same quality services/news with the ad model despite their income/net worth).

replies(6): >>19824449 #>>19824487 #>>19824562 #>>19825635 #>>19825859 #>>19852034 #
hnaccy ◴[04 May 19 04:38 UTC] No.19824487[source]▶
>nothing ever bad happens. With ads: either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website.

You just described something bad.

replies(2): >>19824518 #>>19824533 #
1. daveFNbuck ◴[04 May 19 04:51 UTC] No.19824533[source]▶
What's bad about supporting a site you like while learning about something that interests you? If this were really all ads were I wouldn't block them.
replies(1): >>19825045 #
2. johnchristopher ◴[04 May 19 07:43 UTC] No.19825045[source]▶
That's not what the post says at all.
replies(1): >>19830344 #
3. daveFNbuck ◴[05 May 19 00:39 UTC] No.19830344[source]▶
The person who I am responding to said the following describes something bad:

> either it takes me half a second to tell I'm not interested in an ad, or I actually am interested and i follow the ad because I am interested and I want to support the website

The second half of that sentence is precisely what I'm describing. Do you disagree with my characterization of that sentence?

I assume they included that part in the quote rather than cutting it off earlier because this was part of what they were saying is bad. Do you disagree with me there?