krono

Joined 9 years ago

Karma

3,507

Submissions

925

Member since

Jul 2

Software developer by choice, manager through happenstance, and salesman out of necessity

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 3 months ago

It's caused by a stale plugin cache, which somehow triggers a blocking windows defender scan on application launch.

I only managed to figure that out thanks to this[1] reddit comment, which also includes a solution:

  Noticed this a while back with 3.0.23. Managed to troubleshoot via debug logs.
  
  Basically the plugin cache goes stale and has to rebuild itself every first launch. No clue why.
  
  To fix: go to C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC (or wherever you installed) with a terminal in administrator mode.
  run the command: ./vlc-cache-gen.exe "C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\plugins"
  
  That will rebuild the plugins.dat file which should fix it.

No windows defender exclusion required.

[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/VLC/comments/1skofwx/vlc_3023_windo...

Comment · 6 months ago

I know, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Yesterday I drank a beer out in public - a perfectly legal and culturally/morally acceptable thing to do here in The Netherlands, but deemed wrong to such a degree that it is apparently punishable by death in Iran[1].

I have actively broken Iran's moral stance, societal norms, and laws/jurisprudence against public alcohol consumption from without their jurisdiction, and as being a person unbeholden to their societal norms in any way, shape, or form.

Do I obviously now have no expectation of privacy? Is it now okay for these peoples finding themselves to grievously offended by my actions to collect and publish my private data with damaging intent? Is it then doxxing? Am I really a bad person now? Or maybe it depends on the color of your glasses, maybe there exists an entire world outside of ones own cocoon?

[1]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/29/iran-quash-death-sentenc...

Comment · 6 months ago

So it is doxxing if the doxxed committed wrongdoings from the perspective of... the doxxer? Ideals, morality, alignment, goals and purpose are and have always been a static constant for all humankind. There is no pineapple pizza, it is a lie, for I don't like it, and therefore nobody else ever did either.

Comment · 1 year ago

Yes, I see what you mean, but if that's really the intent, then having only this font-family rule isn't sufficient. For that argument/reasoning to hold up, it would have to be accompanied by metrics adjustments to compensate for the massive differences between some of the listed fonts in these stacks.

Comment · 1 year ago

Oh you flatterer!

My top level comment was not a complaint at all, but rather a heads-up regarding the potentially unexpected or often misunderstood effects of applying these font stacks, accompanied by a practical example, and a personal recommendation with my reasoning.

Now, please, don't be so hostile. It's nasty and makes you come across as a lot more stupid than I believe you really are.

Comment · 1 year ago

It already works as intended. If the intent is to render a default system font, then let the system handle that by simply applying 'monospace'.

Comment · 1 year ago

These font stacks don't handle anything at all, they just throw a bunch of common typeface names at the wall and they can't even tell what sticks because it's so random. All the while, the user might have a prefered fallback font set that they prefer over any of the ones in the font stack - and even if that isn't the case, simply using 'monospace' as the only fallback will render the default monospace font anyway.

I disagree with the notion that common browser configuration options available for users to change through the main/general browser settings UI would in any way be esoteric. It is wholly irrelevant anyway.

The setting you mention has no effect in the case I outlined above - Even with "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above." enabled, the same results are observed.

Comment · 1 year ago

An example of something to keep in mind with this technique is that you might actually end up causing the browser to render a different font than either you or the user intended.

For a practical example:

Environment

  - Latest Firefox on Windows 10.
  - Manually installed fonts 'Cascadia Code' and 'JetBrains Mono NL'.
  - Firefox default 'monospace' font set to 'JetBrains Mono NL'.

Setting `font-family: monospace;` would end up rendering 'JetBrains Mono NL' - the user-configured default monospace font.

Setting `font-family: 'Cascadia Code', monospace;` would also render 'JetBrains Mono NL' - privacy features prevent pages from querying non-standard system fonts and this will also be reflected as a console warning message: 'Request for font "Cascadia Mono" blocked at visibility level 2 (requires 3)".'

Now, if you were to use he "Monospace Code" font stack listed on this page `font-family: ui-monospace, 'Cascadia Code', 'Source Code Pro', Menlo, Consolas, 'DejaVu Sans Mono', monospace;`, you will render... Yup, 'Consolas'!

  1. `ui-monospace` - remains unsupported by Firefox which is lame (would also render 'Consolas').

  2. `Cascadia Code` - see above, access denied because it isn't natively available on Windows 10 (also, coding ligatures... more like illigatures, amirite?).

  3. `Source Code Pro` - skipped due to unavailability.

  4. `Menlo` - skipped due to unavailability.

  5. `Consolas` - next option in line, this one is available and is the one that will be chosen.

  6. `DejaVu Sans Mono`  - skipped, font already determined.

  7. `monospace` - skipped, font already determined.

These modern font stacks suck. Please, if you want to render font and it has to be something specific, then use an actual web font and simply fall back to the default 'monospace' which is controlled by the user.

Comment · 1 year ago

Just found this[0] implementation roadmap on Mozilla's wiki, recently updated too! At least it's actively being worked on.

Not going to lie, this makes me happy.

[0]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebDriver/RemoteProtocol/WebDriver_...

Comment · 1 year ago

I think it's highly disingenuous of you to claim that the regulators in question are acting without any plan or purpose even if those might not be immediately clear. "If you don't like how the table is set, turn over the table."

Comment · 2 years ago

There is chrome://geckoview/content/config.xhtml but many options shown there are nonfunctional. The relevant option is listed but I'm not sure if setting it to false has any effect.

Edit: Just found out that on that link above, you can set general.aboutConfig.enable to true to enable about.config.

It looks like the xml page and the about.config one are the same, as the modifications I made are synced.