Brave introduced new bugs.
Pages don't show correctly anymore, there is a workaround.
New update -fixed!
Again new update : broken again!
One might wonder what these people think not to test their stuff.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 7/27/23 7:43 AM, Edmund wrote:
That's pathetic, I would demand a refund, with cheese to go with it.

On 7/27/2023 9:43 AM, Edmund wrote:
> Brave introduced new bugs.
> Pages don't show correctly anymore, there is a workaround.
> New update -fixed!
> Again new update : broken again!
> One might wonder what these people think not to test their stuff.

How many staff does Brave have ?

Brave should not be modifying the rendering path, right ???

But, they're doing this, so of course they're caught with their
finger in the render-pie. If you are messing with adverts,
there are bound to be symptoms, and that's probably what you're
seeing. They're re-writing HTML/JS pages on the fly, and they
don't look right.

https://brave.com/brave-ads/ad-formats/

Paul

On 07/27/2023 10:43 AM, Edmund wrote:
> Brave introduced new bugs.
> Pages don't show correctly anymore, there is a workaround.
> New update -fixed!
> Again new update : broken again!
> One might wonder what these people think not to test their stuff.

retrograde to previous version

On 7/27/23 22:55, Paul wrote:
> On 7/27/2023 9:43 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> Brave introduced new bugs.
>> Pages don't show correctly anymore, there is a workaround.
>> New update -fixed!
>> Again new update : broken again!
>> One might wonder what these people think not to test their stuff.
>
> How many staff does Brave have ?

I don't care, why are you asking?
>
> Brave should not be modifying the rendering path, right ???

I don't why are you asking?
>
> But, they're doing this, so of course they're caught with their
> finger in the render-pie. If you are messing with adverts,
> there are bound to be symptoms, and that's probably what you're
> seeing. They're re-writing HTML/JS pages on the fly, and they
> don't look right.
>
> https://brave.com/brave-ads/ad-formats/

Is this your way of explaining it away?
I am happy with Brave but I am surprised they now release buggy none
working versions.
It's remarkable they fixed it and broke it again.
>
> Paul

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund

On 7/28/2023 4:29 AM, Edmund wrote:
> On 7/27/23 22:55, Paul wrote:
>> On 7/27/2023 9:43 AM, Edmund wrote:

> Is this your way of explaining it away?

Edmund, every browser is a bad deal.

This is the first principle of the Internet.

Your job, is to figure out what they're doing
while you are browsing.

It's easier to see where design errors come from,
when you "follow the money". What makes money
for them ? What activity is most likely to break ?

The people who make malware, to do what the Brave
folks are doing, now those people really test their
shit.

These are the kinds of browsers available to you.

1) Safe, but feature-moribund browsers.
Browsers that have gone out of support.
Browsers that web sites hate and make the pages freeze.

2) Dangerous browsers with 24-hour a day, move fast and break things support.
Browsers that "do various things to make money".

Those are the only choices we are offered.

For example, yesterday with (1) on a news site, I could not play *any* videos.
The workaround, was really really weird :-) By making the
desktop browser to browse a Mobile page, somehow a cookie got set
to make it work again. An m.foo.com style mobile page.

Summary: Pick a browser type. Deal with the consequences.
That's our job as users. We don't get a say about
"browser quality".

Paul

On 7/28/23 13:51, Paul wrote:
> On 7/28/2023 4:29 AM, Edmund wrote:
>> On 7/27/23 22:55, Paul wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2023 9:43 AM, Edmund wrote:
>
>> Is this your way of explaining it away?
>
> Edmund, every browser is a bad deal.
>
> This is the first principle of the Internet.
>
> Your job, is to figure out what they're doing
> while you are browsing.
>
> It's easier to see where design errors come from,
> when you "follow the money". What makes money
> for them ? What activity is most likely to break ?

I don't care I don't want errors.
>
> The people who make malware, to do what the Brave
> folks are doing, now those people really test their
> shit.
>
> These are the kinds of browsers available to you.
>
> 1) Safe, but feature-moribund browsers.
> Browsers that have gone out of support.
> Browsers that web sites hate and make the pages freeze.
>
> 2) Dangerous browsers with 24-hour a day, move fast and break things support.
> Browsers that "do various things to make money".
>
> Those are the only choices we are offered.
>
> For example, yesterday with (1) on a news site, I could not play *any* videos.
> The workaround, was really really weird :-) By making the
> desktop browser to browse a Mobile page, somehow a cookie got set
> to make it work again. An m.foo.com style mobile page.
>
> Summary: Pick a browser type. Deal with the consequences.
> That's our job as users. We don't get a say about
> "browser quality".
>
> Paul

For now I stay with Brave, I can start it with a workaround just as by
the first bug.

--
-------------

The moment any organization established from pure noble intentions get
some influence, it will be corrupted from both inside and outside.
Then we have organizations established from pure evil.

Edmund