svd_bin VS uBlock

if anyone's interested in "independent" vim keybindings, made to work same in both insert and view modes (and a few different terminals), this is what i use for over.. 25years (?) Basically, few keys like old DOS PE2.exe or (later) e3.exe, and the like, then adding more with years. Like F2 for save, F3 for abandon, Ctrl-F/A for find forward/backward etc. Plus some other stuff that turns vim into kind-a IDE (grepping etc).

https://github.com/svilendobrev/svd_bin/blob/master/qini/_vi...

have fun

(ah, and the dual/multi mode-ness of vim adds extra layer inside it - making say ctrl-U to do undo always isn't that easy)

Each of those layers can vary, in different distro's, terminals, versions of same thing, etc. Especialy each and every (X-)terminal-thingie having different idea of how to map (or not) ctrl-F2. Some of them going back to the 197x ..

i have tried to make myself a one-mapping-fits-all (say, pressing F2 does ls -alF in terminal+shell, and saves-the-buffer in vim, no matter what/where/when), collecting variants and combinations for last ~25+ years - incl. linux-console and even dos mapping.. and it works mostly.. but still, no silver bullet.

see the qini/ folder in

https://github.com/svilendobrev/svd_bin

everything may be remapped to your liking.. eventually. YMMV.

ciao

if anyone finds any of these useful...

https://github.com/svilendobrev/svd_bin (terminal + sh setup , version-control, lots of commands for this or that)

https://github.com/svilendobrev/svd_util (python stuff)

It "works" on chrome, but it works best on firefox: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

Check out uBlock Origin's per site switches [1]

[1]: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Per-site-switches#no-...

If ads, in particular on YouTube, are the problem, anything Chromium-based is probably only going to get worse and worse (see [1] and [2]). So that basically leaves you with Firefox and Safari.

I work for Mozilla (speaking for myself, of course), so I'll leave you to guess which I'd recommend :P

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/09/googles-widely-oppos...

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock

Or if on mobile, it is well worth it to look up adblock options for the browser you use.

What are the compelling advantages of Chrome nowadays?

Chrome is working to limit the capabilities of ad blockers:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/chrome-pushes...

Whereas a compelling advantage of Firefox is that uBlock Origin works best in Firefox:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

Advertising networks have often been vectors for malware. Using an ad blocker is an important security measure. Even the FBI recommends ad blockers:

https://www.malwarebytes.com/malvertising

https://theconversation.com/spyware-can-infect-your-phone-or...

https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624

> It allows for 30,000 dynamic rules

That is not what we mean by dynamic filters. From https://developer.chrome.com/blog/improvements-to-content-fi...

> However, to support more frequent updates and user-defined rules, extensions can add rules dynamically too, without their developers having to upload a new version of the extension to the Chrome Web Store.

What Chrome is talking about is the ability to specify rules at runtime. What critics of Manifest V3 are talking about is not the ability to dynamically add rules (although that can be an issue), it is the ability to add dynamic rules -- ie rules that analyze and rewrite requests in the style of the blockingWebRequest permission.

It's a little deceptive to claim that the concerns here are outdated and to point to vague terminology that sounds like it's correcting the problem, but on actual inspection turns out to be entirely separate functionality from what the GP was talking about.

> Giving this ability to extensions can slow down the browser for the user. These ads can still be blocked through other means.

This is the debate; most of the adblocking community disagrees with this assertion. uBO maintains a list of some common features that are already not possible to support in Chrome ( https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... ) and has written about features that are not able to be supported via Chrome's current V3 API ( https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as... ). Of particular note are filtering for large media elements (I use this a lot on mobile Firefox, it's great for reducing page size), and top-level filtering of domains/fonts.