It's not condescending. You're faced with a highly critical comment criticizing a whole framework when clearly the critic is completely oblivious to the most basic aspects of the whole domain. They know nothing about the whole problem domain, even failing to understand the most basic aspect of what they are doing or what they hope to achieve, but they still invest a lot of energy generating noise that's firmly in the "not even wrong" region. This serves anyone no good.
I fail to see the connection to the "big corps" here, nor being allergic to the truth. This is about being nicer, as a human being. Becoming more empathetic towards a person who is showing their product for the world to see for the first time.
Of course it may have perceived flaws. Do you choose to beat the person for doing it that way, or do you want to offer gentle advice in order to help them? The motive behind the comment is hidden in its delivery.
You can say your truth, all of it - but you can say it in a nice way or in a shitty way. How you say it will define you.
>The motive behind the comment is hidden in its delivery.
This is exactly why there is blowback to the suggestion that GGP was not being nice enough. It comes across as a desire to obscure the motive of that comment.
really? at big corp people talk behind each other’s backs about how shitty each other are or another team is but never confront people directly until shit has hit the fan and someone is going on a permanent vacation
I get what you're saying, but being deceitful / being nonconfrontational / sugarcoating stuff is a completely different matter. You can be direct, while being nice.
It seems a lot of people think that if you have to confront someone or tell the truth, you can't be nice. That is pretty sad.
You can be nice, and you can tell people what you really think. It is 100% possible.
It is about how you word it. It is about putting in some effort to take care of others' feelings. I.e. being caring and empathetic.
What I've been doing was to set up a browser profile (local) for each main context. If I have a set of work accounts (google, github, etc.), I have a 'work' profile for it. This isolates all cookies related to 'work' at once, as well as bookmarks, saved tabs, extensions, and settings. It's a total context switcher.
Profiles definitely have the basic functionality, but I like to keep all my extensions the same across my containers, and it's also easy to set up rules such that a certain site will always open in a certain container. You don't have to think about it at all.
I want my extensions to share the base configuration but have some different settings in different contexts.
Like, allow some tracking & advertising for "shopping" container, but block it otherwise. I don't mind having a special self-curated image where my in-scope browsing is tracked and analyzed. Now, I just have a separate browser (Chrome) for this - because it's more straightforward and less error-prone.
Or a sandbox development & local resource management profile where nothing but localhost and LAN addresses are allowed. And then block such access for any other profile - for security reasons.
Or allow, let's say, Grammarly extension on a few selected websites (like HN), where all I write is public and I would benefit from machines aiding my writing without any privacy concerts, but don't give it any chance to see my private correspondence.
Unfortunately, that's not possible with containers, and profiles are quite cumbersome.
I'm also doing this in chrome. I have about 5 different profiles, aliased to things like `chrome-work`, `chrome-personal`, `chrome-dev', etc. I would love to use FF, but iirc FF doesn't provide something like `firefox --profile=someIdentifier` that opens a new window in my desired profile.
edit: Apparently this is bad info. I'll have to give it a try again.
There's also a firefox-bin. Anyone know what the difference between firefox and firefox-bin is nowadays?
I believe that in the far past firefox-bin was the firefox binary, and firefox was a shell script that would do things like notice you already have a firefox-bin instance open and signal it to open a new window rather than launching a new firefox-bin instance.
But nowadays, firefox and firefox-bin seem almost the same. On the current release version on Mac, for example, both are binaries, with firefox-bin 40320 bytes and firefox just 16 bytes bigger.
Info.plist in /Applications/Firefox.app/Contents gives firefox is the executable to run. I'm not sure what role firefox-bin has now, if any.
Grabbing the source and building it myself results in firefox and firefox-bin matching.
I used to always include `--no-remote` here but it seems `firefox -P <profile>` now works, too, even when another Firefox instance is already running. Is anyone experiencing the same?
It's always very jarring to come across a post that is so drastically different in tone when you're just trying to follow a comment thread.
> I think you should take a step back and meditate over your post.
I wish you'd follow your own advice.