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.

Oops, s/he did. Sorry.

But was that figure provided by AI?

Even if not, we all know that 793% of all statistics are invented.

If something is inaccurately presented as being the truth, then it is a lie of omission because it is dishonest about the fact that the information isn't actually known.

Gemini is exceptionally bad, as LLMs go. I really have no idea why it is so dreadful, even compared to other LLMs. It isn't context window. and it doesn't seem to be training material either.

Cyber Implications have been noted. Mondas security is to be Cyber Vibed until we have Cyber Security capable of defeating The Doctor.

When I test the different AI systems, Google's AI system loses track of complex problems incredibly quickly. It's great on simple stuff, but for complex stuff, it's useless.

Unfortunately.... advice, overviews, etc, are very very complex problems indeed, which means that you're hitting the weakspot of their system.

nealric didn't claim it was every year. It is in fact $400 to register an EV in Texas for the first two years. Thereafter, it's $200 per year. pdf alert:

https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/de...

Texas does not charge a sales tax for gasoline. However, it does collect a federal tax of 18.4 cents. Another pdf:

https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tt...

Per the second pdf, the math shows that the average driver pays $9.52 per month to the state, or $18.28 per month including federal tax. That comes out to $114.24 per year to the state, or $219.36 including federal tax. So, EV drivers pay more to the state, but ICE drivers pay slightly more overall on average.

I've designed a few machines - some rather more insane than others - in meticulous detail using AI. What I have not done, so far, is get an engineer to review the designs to see if any of them can be turned into something that would be usable. My suspicion is that a few might be made workable, but that has to be verified.

Having said that, producing the design probably took a significant amount of compute power and a significant amount of water. If I'd fermented that same quantity of water and provided wine to an engineering team that cost the same as the computing resources consumed, I'd probably have better designs.But, that too, is unverified. As before, it's perfectly verifiable, it just hasn't been so far.

If an engineer looks at the design and dies laughing, then I'm probably liable for funeral costs but at least there would be absolutely no question as to how good AI is at challenging engineering concepts. On the other hand, if they pause and say that there's actually a neat idea in a few of the concepts, then it becomes a question of how much of that was ideas I put in and how much is stuff the AI actually put together. Again, though, we'd have a metric.

That, to me, is the crux. It's all fine and well arguing over whether AI is any good or not (and, tbh, I would say that my feeling is that you're absolutely right), but this should be definitively measured and quantified, not assumed. There may be far better benchmarks than the designs I have - I'm good but I'm not one of the greats, so the odds of someone coming up with better measures seems high. But we're not seeing those, we're just seeing toy tests by journalists and that's not a good measure of real-world usability.

If no such benchmark values actually appear, then I think it's fair to argue that it's because nobody believes any AI out there is going to do well at them.

(I can tell you now, Gemini won't. Gemini is next to useless -- but on the Other Side.)

This means you shoud NOT, under any circumstance, run Claude at 88mph. Unless you really want to.

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.