←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
SuperShibe ◴[] No.44544826[source]
[flagged]
replies(6): >>44544855 #>>44545234 #>>44546507 #>>44546656 #>>44546983 #>>44547982 #
4gotunameagain ◴[] No.44544855[source]
Well, in his defense it would have been patched immediately after the first adblocker used it, and he would have gotten nothing at all out of it.

Oh wait he got nothing at all anyway ;)

replies(2): >>44544888 #>>44545091 #
m4rtink ◴[] No.44545091[source]
Would be quite different if they patched it and broke important extensions, possibly facing serieous outcry and bad publicity.
replies(3): >>44545271 #>>44545323 #>>44545582 #
deryilz ◴[] No.44545582[source]
I agree that would change things but I can't picture an open-source extension with millions of users pivoting to rely on something that's clearly a bug.
replies(1): >>44547361 #
1. userbinator ◴[] No.44547361[source]
At that point it's a feature, not a bug.

Having millions of users on your side is great ammunition.