![]() ![]() I think perhaps at most they have a point that the default settings are maybe not "warm" enough, but that's the only flaw I can see.į.lux doesn't "deal" with anything, it just takes your existing ICC/ICM file, alters it, and resets your GPU's LUT with it. All three accomplish the same thing, it's just that Apple's implementation appears to be cleaner and work in more cases (not surprising - it's their system, so presumably they know how to integrate with it better than anyone). Anyone who has seen the video issues I'm describing above can attest that there is still plenty of blue light coming out of the screen with f.lux (and manual color profile adjustments). Incidentally, I find it strange that f.lux is claiming they output so much less blue light than Apple's Night Shift, since as far as I can tell, all they do is shift the color profile, just like Night Shift does. Until Night Shift was available, I've been in the habit of of creating "low color temp" color profiles and manually setting my display to them when it gets late in the day (a crude approximation of f.lux, but ultimately the same thing they are doing). It's likely f.lux cannot ever do anything about it. Apple seems to have built their solution in a way that avoids this issue. In this mode, f.lux's color profile changes can cause weird blooming issues, especially in bright ares of the video (like a blue sky). The full screen mode displays in a more direct screen access manner (but only after any overlays, like video controls, have faded out). It happens when you play full-screen videos on a mac. I'd say something to do with tin foil hats would be more appropriate. Wish it was that easy to view an extension's source other than digging through the chrome internal data folders.Īnd I don't think cargo culting is the correct term, or bike shedding. I'd actually love to know how you got to the source code in three clicks. But what about the users who don't know how to do so or can't read code? Even if they can, can they discern malicious code from harmless code? Will you say the same thing you said to me to a user with no understanding of how these things work? You know enough to look for the source and check it out. ![]() But, how many developers are you going to keep trusting this way? You can't normalize every extension having those permissions! Read and change, not just read all websites. I appreciate the developer's time on this and don't mean to disparage their effort. The only way I'd be okay with letting extensions access and change contents of webpages if they specify the website url they're going to access, and those are the only websites they can access (Reddit Enhancement Suite does this) A quick google search give me thisĮver let someone's code have access to everything on every webpage, including all of your financial and personal ones you use? Well you're doing it right now. This is the case when you need to be paranoid. I'm tired of the anti-security comments that come up against people commenting about bad security practices, even though they're restrictive and paranoid. The only way to stop it from updating itself is to go to the manifest file and removing the update url. You might trust the developer to not do anything bad, or not accidentally leak his private key for the extension. You viewed the source code, but the extension checks for an update every couple hours and updates itself. There's no way for me to stop the extension from updating in the options. Especially when the extension can auto update without my permission. But I don't think it is unwarranted to be paranoid about letting an extension have those permissions. You're right about me being a security nut.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |