Firefox introduced vertical tabs in 2025
Edge introduced them in 2021.
Chrome had extensions for them before both of these dates.

Come on man your UID is missing a few zeros to not know your IT history. Don't let the old-guard nerds down like that.

Because they see the metrics of extensions released for their browsers showing that users are very much not only coding these up themselves, but using them too.

Zero workflows are altered in any way but a completely optional feature you can completely ignore and won't affect you. For the "reasons" see question 1. But why ask a question if you are already stubbornly committed to an answer?

What fat? Please tell us what you want removed, and when you do just know that you'll be breaking someone's workflow for "reasons".

Why would they do that? How about you pay for the product instead of telling them their way of monetising it isn't suitable for you. You're a very picky person who is getting something for free. Why not make your own browser?

In what way is giving the user more choice in any way "anti-consumer"? You should be praising this decision. But since you're not, you should be sharing the name of your dealer. We all want some of that good stuff.

No need for the sarcasm. Enough people wanted this that multiple extensions exist for it.

Thinking further, it seems like it'd be impossible to separate things because commodities future trading is in fact a kind of gambling. When you buy a futures contract, you're betting that the price of the commodity will go above the contract price. The seller is betting it won't. The only difference is what you get if you win the bet. dollars or eg. corn. Once you allow intangibles in, even that distinction disappears. The dissent has a point, but I think the majority is correct as to the law and if people don't like it then the law needs to be changed to restrict what can be traded on a commodities market.

I wasn't disagreeing with what he said I was correcting the interpretation of how strongly worded what he said was. Like if a Briton makes a joke the direct reading and the correct reading may not be obvious to all audiences. What the body can clear is dependent on its solubility in water and peroxide, generally. Your body will build granulomas around other buildups it can recognize but not dispose of. It's why, say, asbestos or graphite tend to stay put once they get inside you, water soluble vitamins shoot on through, fat soluble things can poison you but will diffuse back out eventually. This is also why the article points out differential concentration of microplastics in different types of tissues, and why concentrations in brain tissue are of particular concern because things don't diffuse back out of it easily. Particle size also matters, e.g. dust exposure of microparticulates of something as otherwise mundane as wood can end up directly dissolved in your blood. In those cases, though, the worst likely outcome is immunogenicity because your body can 'see' such natural proteins readily. If it is hypoallergenic then it is comparatively invisible and you're depending on diffusion and solution buffering to save you.

Please do yourself the favour and RTFA before you look any stupider than you already do. This mechanism is not querying an unrelated site. If you want to pretend to be a clever programmer than note the OP even helpfully put the thing you think is an "unrelated site" (it's not, it's a management interface which by necessity needs to be open for some extensions) in quotation marks indicating it is a string being searched for in the DOM tree.

Who said report? No one. Chrome has no interface to report a list of extensions to a website. Extensions expose management interfaces, this is part of their function, and it's necessary to how they are written, installed, managed, updated, etc. These interfaces can be probed manually if you know the extension ID. So all a website needs to do is load a script and do a call to e.g. chrome-extension://ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh/. If it gets a 404 error then it knows you have Ublock Lite installed, if it returns ERR_BLOCKED_BY_CLIENT then you know it doesn't exist.

Firefox and other browsers have similar systems in place. It's required for how extensions work. It has always existed. No browser out there has successfully prevented fingerprinting, and Firefox's anti-fingerprinting system actually works by blacklisting browser requests to companies who provide fingerprinting services, not by technical means. In this case according to the report LinkedIn is only doing this on Chrome, but it's a fantasy to think you're magically protected by using an alternate browser for any other reason than not being popular makes you less of a target. -- In which case you should be promoting the use of Chrome as it would actively raise your security.

Chrome isn't just providing a nice easy list of shit to identify you with. It's a game of whack-a-mole, using clever tricks. Always has been.

Case in point, part of the website scans the DOM tree looking for elements that are different to what was served up which would indicate the presence of an extension that is modifying the page. This is trivial to do on *ANY* browser and is completely platform independent. Though it only works for extensions which do something.

Except you're making assumptions. Early adopters, and adopters of new shiny tech very frequently are overjoyed and accept that their toy may not have the same longevity as something else. It's literally why we call these people early adopters. It's literally the purpose for using a term to separate them from people like you.

You never asked the person, you're making an assumption. OP said she got the phone to impress her friends. Did it work? Maybe it did exctly what she hoped it would do and and was an investment well spent. You never asked when the line developed, or how long anyone expected the device to last.

I asked a question. That's not "going nutso". You on the other hand made stupid assumptions and jumped to a conclusion. ... That's also not "going nutso", that's just plain stupid. Be better.

Well, you can make the hydrogen easier to handle by binding it to carbon... Perhaps synthesizing jet fuel with carbon recaptured from the atmosphere will win, since it doesn't require modifying the planes and the new tech is on the ground.

Unless your jet makes its own hydrogen you need to make it somewhere else. As you said, they burn fuel like crazy so you'll need a lot of fuel. Not so much a problem if you have, but a massive fucking problem if you have several.

The duration of storage is very much years on end. Inventory needs to be retained indefinitely. It's this thing we call "refueling". H2 doesn't magically appear at the end of a hose, it comes from a storage facility.

Fun fact: Hydrogen refueling stations typically store so little hydrogen than they can only fuel 2-3 cars in an hour with their electrolyzers running full tilt, and that little amount of hydrogen is enough to cause a blast that would kill people within 100s of meters if something we wrong. A plane needs significantly more storage. And one plane won't change the world. Airports currently have quite significant tank farms to keep them running. Replacing jet fuel with hydrogen storage for even a small portion of the traffic would render an entire airport a major hazard facility closed to the public.

Storage is a HUGE problem. How huge? Well you know how dangerous Ammonia leaks can be? Like the thing that can be lethal at 300ppm? Well I remind you the industry was looking at using H2 to make ammonia, and then using ammonia crackers to make H2 again because they considered this the "safer" way of handling any kind of significant H2 economy.

H2 is a dead end outside of industrial processes.

It's actually not very inefficient at all to make hydrogen. Using electrolysis you're looking at traditional systems having between 75-85% efficiency. We have already demonstrated technologies in pilot plants that push this efficiency up into the realm of battery charging (90-95% efficiency). Best of all, the use of electricity can be batched and electrolysis can be a load follower. - Actually most projects that haven't been cancelled in the hydrogen world right now are very much this - load following to take advantage of excess electricity.

We already have, if you can vary production to make use of it. A datacentre can't so they are complaining about having not enough power, they need it 24/7. But an electrolyser can very much vary production, and with that taken into account a very significant portion of the day we have so much excess electricity that in many places electricity spot prices may dip negative. The economics of this are so solid that some companies exist to run grid scale batteries simply to move supply and demand to a different time of day.

But really the biggest problem is storage and transport. H2 is FUCKING DANGEROUS. Trivial to ignite, leaks when you look at it funny, every explosion is almost universally a destructive detonation vs the deflagrations we're used to with most traditional hydrocarbons. It's a non-starter for those reasons. The amount you'd need to produce and store at an airport to fuel even a small percentage of planes would turn half of the airport into a major hazard facility. And let's not even get started about the idea of ammonia storage in a built up area, you know ... the "safer" option of storing hydrogen...

This is a silly approach to the problem (in a general case, I don't actually think a H2 economy is a good idea). Rather than concerning ourselves with something that minimises the breakdown of methane, how about we raise hell on the fuckwits who don't at least flare off methane in the first place. There's zero reason to leak any significant amount of methane into the atmosphere. It's not just a waste, but it's also quite unsafe.

Over a 20 year span methane has a GWP of around 80x that of CO2. We should direct 100% of effort into stopping the release of methane, and no effort into vilifying hydrogen. (Especially since there's so many other reasons hydrogen can be vilified, including the horrendously bad economics of it).

The research I work with doesn't touch this sort of microplastics, but you seem to be confused regarding your preferred interpretation of what isn't a particularly hard to understand research paper, how couched in tentative language it is written, why a researcher would write it that way, and how they'd intend for it to be understood.

Way to put a bandage on a wound rather than treating the cause of the bleeding. Not using Chrome doesn't help you here. You are being fingerprinted regardless.

While the US just repaid a French company a billion dollar deposit to cancel offshore wind farms, China has constructed the largest wind turbines in the world for their newest wind farms.

https://kdwalmsley.substack.co...

This is the world’s largest offshore wind turbine. It is off of Fujian province, in South China. It generates enough power for 44,000 households, or over a hundred thousand people. It displaces 22,000 tons of coal per year. This unit is part of a large farm 30 km offshore, where there are already a number of 16-megawatt turbines, and when those were installed, they were the world’s largest.

It’s a breakthrough in engineering, that this much output comes from a single turbine, instead of a group of them working together, and experts say that it will inform future wind farms. That’s also a region that sees frequent severe storms.

This was all hard to do, then, and we’re curious why the Chinese bothered at all. It required a ship to be specially designed and built, just to get the turbine into position. Having it out there means that China can leave 22,000 tons of coal in the ground they otherwise would have hauled to the surface and set on fire . . .

In December, the Interior Department announced an immediate pause on offshore wind projects under construction in the United States, due to national security risks identified by the Department of War. The government found that big turbine blades create radar interference, and obscure legitimate moving targets and generate false ones.

It’s not great to learn that our money-no-object Pentagon has radars that can’t tell the difference between a supersonic bomber flying toward Washington, or a windmill floating off of Long Island Sound. And it’s also not great that the White House has just told the rest of the world that our radars are that bad. This should be in a super-top-secret Pentagon report, instead of a press release from the White House.