I’m not sure if resistFingerprinting does anything to stop websites from uploading whatever data they can get though, I don’t think it does that. And I don’t think it could really do that in the first place since the website could just obfuscate the data and browser wouldn’t know what is sent.

That’s not necessarily a good solution either, because a service could figure out that the source of random fingerprint data likely comes from the same user. Especially if your ip is not changing. It might perhaps be effective if a substantial amount of people were doing it though.

But to generate such random fingerprint is difficult because it consists of many parts and services don’t all build fingerprints the aame way. You could easily randomize e.g. canvas data, but the issue is that if you only randomize one data point then that one random data point pretty uniquely identifies you if your other datapoints are stable. So to be effective you would really need to randomize several different datapoints and that may not be such an easy task since websites could build them in all sorts of ways.

Yeah, regular http cache is indeed a thing. However it’s more complicated because the web server can tell the browser how the returned content should be cached - if at all. So if, say, reddit servers ask the browser to not cache particular resource (for whatever reason) then it won’t be cached. I mean, the browser is free to do as it pleases, but I think in general browsers would do as the server asked and indeed not cache it.

Yup, YT has only shown me a nice “Sign in to confirm you’re not a bot” message for the past week or so. Not because of Firefox or adblockers though, because the same happens on all other browsers and clients as well.

Maybe because of VPN, or who knows what, maybe they are just idiots.

Indeed. I mean, I’m blocking ads as much the next guy and that’s not going to change in any foreseeable future, but I cannot see how introduction of privacy preserving advertising platform could possibly be seen as anything other than an improvement over the current, completely perverse, situation. It would be better for people who don’t block ads, so if this acquisition would advance uses of privacy-respecting advertising systems and simultaneously get some revenue to Mozilla then this sounds quite like a win-win to me.

I don’t. Pretty much everything just goes to other bookmarks. When I want to use them I’ll just type * to urlbar , type something about it and Firefox usually finds the bookmark I wanted.

Yes. I want to have access to both history and bookmarks on all my devices and send specific tabs to other devices. Sync makes these super convenient.

Huh, okay. That does seem like extensions can indeed write arbitrary data to default download directory automatically. Maybe you can create a feature request to existing extension for that kind of feature. Although I would think that an interval is totally unnecessary and it would make more sense to only make a backup whenever style editor is started or a style is otherwise being added/removed or some such.

I’m not 100% sure about this, but I don’t think addons are allowed to write anything to disk without user interaction, except to their own database of course.

I guess you could do it if you had some other installed software that backed up extension data from Firefox profile folder. Then again, if you are worried about some profile data getting wiped, then it would just make sense to back up the whole profile and not just little bits of it because who knows what other data could get wiped.

Okay, since it doesn’t like it’s your main computer or anything, you might be interested to try taskbar profile grouping. Go to about:config and while there create a new boolean pref named taskbar.grouping.useprofile and set it to true. Doing that the two profiles should have their own group in taskbar. It’s a very crude feature though, since for example the right-click jump list items are not separate and you can’t set different icons for them (unless you do that via Windows somehow), but it sort of works.

Fair. For something like that containers don’t work, and indeed profiles are probably the way to go. I sure wouldn’t mind if about:profiles had a button to create new icon for that specific profile which then would also be in its own taskbar group, but I doubt I would want it as default for new profiles.

At any rate, having multiple profiles per same install on same Windows user poses some issues. Like what profile are links in other applications supposed to open in?

I think this really comes to what exactly you want to separate. You say "I often need to use two different profiles". Okay, why do you need to use separate profiles though? Maybe separate profiles are not a great solution in the first place for your purpose?

Firefox profiles are amazing because you can be sure that no data is shared between the two profiles (unless you sync them of course) - for whatever reason one might want that. But if you just need some session separation then containers would be a much better fit.

Indeed, but what I don’t get is why on earth do people spew this damn crap about manifest v3 as a whole, when the actual issue is just the removal of "webRequestBlocking" feature that Google is about to bring along with their implementation of mv3. Why the hell aren’t folks mad about the actual issue but instead just want to be mad about the whole bloody thing, which actually also does bring some very real privacy improvements among other nice things.

I don’t think that’s possible. As a sort of workaround you might be able to first backup all your other bookmarks on each device first, and then remove them. Then turn on sync and let it sync your keyword folder to all devices. Next, turn off bookmark sync again and then restore the backups.

Probably easier to just manually create the keyword folder its bookmarks though, since as a result you’ll just end up with a not-synchronized keyword folder, but only having a snapshot copy of it on each device.

If a website has a compatible PWA manifest the there will be an item labelled “install” in the three-dot menu of Firefox in place of usual “add to homescreen” item.

Edit: There’s a few other requirements as well for the website to be considered installable as PWA, such as it must have a registered service worker so it can work offline. But regardless, if the website provides all the requirements then it can just be installed straight from the menu.

Notepad++ works great for taking notes. Besides, it’s open 24/7 anyway so dedicating a tab or two (or dozen lol) feels pretty natural.

I only use Joplin if I have some “very structured” notes about some topic, and while that is also open 24/7 np++ is always my go-to because “it just works” without having to care at all about formatting nor anything fancy.

Yeah, that indeed sounds like a bug.

Huh. I dunno what the actual requirements for Android compatibility are then. Anyhow, being recommended or in a custom collection isn’t strictly a requirement anymore.

This isn’t true anymore. Any extensions that are explictly marked as Android compatible (by the author) should now be installable from AMO. I’m pretty sure that the extension needs to use manifest v3 to be able to be Android compatible, but as long as that is true and the author has set the Android compatibility flag, you should be able to add it normally.

Installing from AMO seems to work fine for me - although I’m using Nightly variant, which certainly could behave differently. However, Firefox 120 is supposed to work the same I believe.

This should be pretty simple to do, although what exactly do you consider a “duplicate”? Does it count as duplicate if the bookmarks have the same name, or same url, or does both name and url need to be equal?

Edit: So the extension could work like this - it’s awaiting review, but the eventual AMO page would be here