this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
409 points (91.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

25548 readers
293 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 97 points 2 years ago (4 children)

changes useragent to Chrome. Everything works perfectly on the site

Hmm. Interesting.

[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 39 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is actually exactly how user agents evolved.

Chrome pretends to be safari.

IE pretends to be Netscape.

Safari pretends to be Firefox.

All popular browsers pretend to be at least one other browser for compatibility.

https://humanwhocodes.com/blog/2010/01/12/history-of-the-user-agent-string/

[–] FinancesDrone98@programming.dev 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So it’s kind of like back in the Netscape days.

Men are men, women are men, boys are men, and little girls are FBI agents.

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] lnsfw3@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 5 points 2 years ago

Well, he was definitely stroking something.

[–] ndguardian@lemmy.studio 14 points 2 years ago

My SO just had something similar pop up yesterday. She was running into weird errors on her Chromebook, so I had her change her user agent to Chrome on Windows. Everything magically worked. Hmm…

[–] GrievingWidow420@feddit.it -4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Doesn't solve the problem tho, which makes editing the useragent nothing but a temporary solution not worth being smartass-megamind about

[–] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

What is the perceived problem, then? 99% of sites these days are all built with kits that support Firefox just as well as Chromium, the dev choice to not support or intentionally lock out Firefox is either just laziness (not wanting to deal with any potential problems or not given enough time to run full Firefox user tests) or incentive driven (middle manager has word from high manager that they can't support firefox because highest manager makes bank from Chromium).

The technical limitation isn't actually there in the modern web, it's almost always a manufactured limitation. I think I've only ever encountered a single website that didn't actually technically work on Firefox, and that was Weather Underground. Which they ended up fixing after 3 months or so.

[–] GrievingWidow420@feddit.it -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

What is the perceived problem, then?

Make sure to read this thoroughly this time.

[...]it's almost always a manufactured limitation.

Doesn't that sound like a good description of a problem?

I think I've only ever encountered a single website that didn't actually technically work on Firefox[...]

There's gonna be a hell of a lot more of them, buddy. You're gonna have to hang your cat on your balcony to get an estimate of future weather if you want to avoid using one of them how-are-these-even browsers.

Imagine yourself as a homosexual man in Iran (should be easy). Would you say that hiding that big part of you from everyone and even go as far as marrying a woman you don't even like just not to arouse suspicion makes the problem disappear? Just the fact that you need to spoof your useragent to view a shitty website, the developer of which would (should) die under a car one day 🤞, is a solid proof that you will soon be that homosexual man in Iran.

[–] empireOfLove@lemmy.one 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Bro are you seriously comparing using a vendor locked web browser to being stoned for being gay in a conservative religious country 🤣🤣🤣

[–] JoCrichton@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Guess I’m continuing to use Firefox in hell then

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 10 points 2 years ago

Join the club!

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

"Best viewed with Netscape navigator"

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)
[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The image embed doesn't work. Lemmy supports embedding media only if HTTPS is used. This website is HTTP.

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I already fixed it, but I didn't know that! That's really cool!

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You can also embed images inside links, by the way (click the button):
Get Firefox

[![Get Firefox](https://i.imgur.com/KpmYhB1.gif)](https://getfirefox.com)

Also if say you have image/animation/audio/video link without extension (e.g.: .jpg), you can fool Lemmy using a fragment identifier at the end of URL #.jpg which would usually be used to jump to the fragment id in document. e.g.: https://example.org/image#.jpg

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 4 points 2 years ago

Wowzers that's fancy, I'll have to save that for the future

[–] x4740N@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Now I'm wondering if someone in bad faith could link an tracking image and just rip ip addressees in the background

I guess it depends on if lemmy clients query the link to fetch fetch images or just grab a cached copy of the image from the lemmy instance

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago

Images in comments don't get cached, so absolutely yes. But I mean, public IP + User Agent is like minimum of information anyway. Any website you visit gets it.

[–] mounderfod@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

it's not just lemmy; HTTPS websites aren't allowed to serve HTTP content
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Mixed_content

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sorry, my bad. And thanks for the info.

[–] mounderfod@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago

No worries, I find the intricacies of protocols like this super interesting 😊

[–] dullbananas@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Vatican website

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"It seems you have an ad blocker enabled. In order the enjoy the full benefits of heaven, please disable it and accept our cookies"

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

bro who is selling ads in heaven

[–] Metal_Zealot@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago

Google Adsense has a further reach that you think

[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hell runs on Linux so it never freezes.

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 5 points 2 years ago

It all makes so much sense now haha!

[–] Quindius@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

At least God isn't a crypto bro

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 years ago

Hell only supports IE. You hang out in limbo with all the cool kids.

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If Firefox could run full screen video without crashing every fucking time ... that'd be great

[–] xusontha@ls.buckodr.ink 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I don't seem to have any problem with Firefox videos, maybe it's on your end

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

That's absolutely part of it. I have an old phone, but Chrome has been flawless on every phone I've had including this one.