My two biggest ones are for a work tracker and a support system. I’ve written extensive user scripts to improve inferior web interfaces of tools that we use for work. Wish this was in more in native media players. Great great for skipping past ads or blocks of content based on visual timeline. This is particularly useful if your script grows to the point where it could benefit from an options screen, as you can configure `"options_ui": )() It also reloads the extension when you make changes. Once you've dropped a manifest.json in, web-ext is handy for running extensions in Firefox and Chrome in a temporary profile/developer mode. If your userscript doesn't depend on any APIs provided by the userscript manager you're using, you can package it up as a WebExtension by adding a manifest.json: Personally, I use most of the extensions I've written in userscript form via Greasemonkey for the convenience of being able to drop straight into editing and testing it when I spot something which could be added or needs to be fixed. > We could create a browser extension, but that means developing one for all major browsers. I think this isn't too bad of a deal for privacy either, everyone assumes you must completely switch a service, but if you only search popular things on google, then you will look just like everyone else, you starve them of specificity. So now - I use both, DDG by default because it's faster to get to the result with less shit in the way then back to google for the few popular things. but DDG is worse for popular things where the search phrase is less descriptive and more associative. I found that DDG is good for these types of searches (esoteric technical search that might be clobbered by googles dumb "AI" autocorrect or SEO optimization / I cant tell if it's an ad anymore BS that slows you right down), for these you get the result immediately and with one click. I tried to switch and ended up using both, I use duckduckgo not for privacy but practical reasons: recently google has become extremely irritating for technical searches that are not popular, even for the ones it can find it now autocorrects them by default to "what it thinks you meant", which for technical things like parameter names, command names, APIs etc are always wrong, even though the whole search phrase is extremely descriptive and matchable. I'd like to offer a less binary perspective. Google et al must be doing extra work to group the “same” articles of different language-versions together, assigning them the PageRank of the highest-ranked one in the grouping, while rendering out the link+summary as that of the group-member corresponding to your own language.) (It would actually be more work to do the opposite, now that I think about it-in raw PageRank terms, there’s always going to be a most-linked-to language-version of a Wikipedia article, and doing nothing means that that version simply floats to the top. I wonder if DDG has just caught onto this trend, and is prioritizing the language of the article that has the most editorial activity. That specific discrepancy has probably been since fixed up care of HN readers themselves, but it was eye-opening, especially since the English-language version of the article was phrased in decisive terms like “scientists don’t know X” where the German article instead says “X is caused by Y” citing enough studies to thoroughly prove its point.) (I recall, in the recent HN discussion that linked to, people were pointing out that the German-language article carried a lot more information than the English-language article. This gulf sometimes turns out to be so large, that it’s sometimes more informative to read a foreign-language Wikipedia article through machine-translation, rather than reading the one in your own language! more/less content, more/less fact-checking, etc.) depending on the language. It was only recently that I discovered that each language’s version of Wikipedia is independently edited, rather than being a translated reflection of a canonical source material and, therefore, that inevitably there will be “better” or “worse” versions of a page (i.e. Non-English Wikipedia articles before the English ones
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |