Just started getting this now. Hopefully it’s some A/B testing that they’ll stop doing, but I’m not holding my breath

  • perishthethought@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I hate how these kinds of messages never explain WHY. It’s just “Do it. Do what we tell you.” 💀

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      BOW TO YOUR MASTERS, AND SUCK OUR DICK!!!

      I remember 10 years ago looking at a calculator app in the android app store, and seeing the permissions. And thinking “WHY THE FUCK DOES A CALCULATOR NEED MY LOCATION, AND ACCESS TO MY PHONE CONTACTS???”

      Fuck THAT.

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Google is no longer a Search Engine. It is a commerce/purchase search. It’s nothing more than ads and corporate results to purchase goods & services. Google Shopping has taken over Google.

    • Delta_V@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Back in the day it was the best at what it did, but there’s less demand these days for that kind of old fashioned search.

      Its still better than the competition at finding the URL of a corporate or government entity. Its still helpful for searching other websites for particular content - for example, the wikis for some games have an obtuse layout and unhelpful search function, and google can be the best way to find a particular page in that wiki.

      Before ChatGPT existed, and before the enshitifaction of Reddit reached the critical level its at today, google searching site:reddit.com was pretty good at finding organic human conversations that provide actual answers to your questions.

      Today however, ChatGPT is better at providing useful answers to whatever questions you may have. And Bing is better at image search.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I know this may come off as a surprise: but I imagine that requiring JS in 2024 isn’t a big deal to most people.

    Now of course Lemmy skews more into that small crowd.

    I don’t blame any website for requiring JS for full functionality in 2024.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      All of the people replying to this saying you shouldn’t need JS are totally unaware how modern web development works.

      Yes, you could do many sites without JS, but the entire workforce for web development is trained with JS frameworks. To do otherwise would slow development time down significantly, not allow for certain functionality to exist (functionality you would 100% be unhappy was missing).

      Its not a question of possibility, its a question of feasibility.

      • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m a React dev. You can create server side websites, written in JS, that don’t require JS to be turned on in the browser. Granted, this just became a new official feature in React but has already been available with React frameworks like NextJS

        • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          That is insane! I’m wondering how they handle modifying the DOM w/ out JS, did HTML 5 get a significant update? I gotta look into this because that sound super interesting.

          Any chance you know what version that went out with? I did a brief look at 18 and 17 and couldnt find it. Id really love to know how they are managing this.

          • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            It’s called Server Components. If you actually build a fully static website, there is no DOM modification going on. I would actually not recommend doing that with React because it kinda defeats the purpose. The goal of it is to have a mix of both. The initial render is super fast because it is prerendered once for everyone. Then dynamic data is being fetched if needed and elements are replaced. It also improves SEO.

            React 19 is not yet officially released but you can read more about it here https://react.dev/blog/2024/04/25/react-19

            • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              So you’re offloading the JS processing onto the server? I cant be understanding this correctly because there is no way anyone wants to pay for the serverside cost of something that used to be an end user “cost”. Also this would add interaction latency.

              • ClassifiedPancake@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                There is no latency on static pages. They are rendered once as regular HTML and then saved on the server to be immediately ready for the user. The server is only processing that initial data fetching and rendering once per site. If needed, it can be retriggered. This is great for blogs and other regular pages.

                Server pages on the other hand will do the initial fetch request every time but once the site is there, no data is missing and everything is there. It’s not for everyone. Regular dynamic pages still make sense. For every method there are use cases.

                Disclaimer: I’m speaking from my experience with Next.js which did the same thing long before and React now aims to make that easier. But I’m not sure if React has the distinction between static and server. It’s all new and I haven’t had a project to test it on yet.

                • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Oh I see, its only for a static page. This makes so much more sense.

                  I can see why you mentioned this feature fits weird with react, and I have to agree, its contradictory to the entire purpose of React lol.

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I get a notification every month telling me that they will charge me for my monthly Kagi subscription and every single month i feel the same:

      ‘Totally worth it!’

      • datavoid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I feel like their pricing would make more sense if you could just pay for your usage, rather than forcing a subscription

        • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          They do have different tiers depending on your search volume and features, so in a way they already have this. I’d hate to have to go through checkout every time i did a search.

          • drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Why do you think you have to go through a checkout?

            They could just pool your owed money and then charge you that at the end of the month, or let you maintain a pool that you throw money into that they take from as you use it.

            • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              They have 100, 300, and unlimited for $0, $5, and $10

              How much would you be willing to pay per search? And do you know how many searches you make every month?

              For me, i pay not for the searches as such, but to not be tracked and be shown more ads than search results

              • datavoid@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                I haven’t been using kagi long enough to really understand how it works yet, but it’s my understanding that they want you to pay every month, even if you had remaining searches from the previous month.

                If I pay $5 for 300 searches, why does it matter if I do them within a time frame? When someone isn’t’ searching, they aren’t really costing Kagi anything.

                Alternatively, let people pay 1.6 cents per search (or 1.8 cents or something).

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Basically because the product they’re selling isn’t “You get to do a search whenever” but “You get to do a search this month”.

                  The reason for that, based on my experience with various web startups, is they want to maximize the predictability of their resource usage in terms of staff and servers.

                  If millions of people pay their $5 and then don’t use their searches, then in the extreme case Kagi could be maintaining servers twenty years later in anticipation that their customers might use those searches.

                  It’s an edge case, but it illustrates the point.

                  Also, on the customer side, there’s a psychological benefit to free things. Free as in “already paid for; no cost to using it”.

                  If you have something that can be used this month but not any other month, then using it is free. If using it now means you can’t use it next year, then there’s still a cost to it despite it already being paid for.

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I run NoScript, which blocks all JavaScript. I manually allow websites as I need it. It blocks all kinds of annoying nonsense while I browse.

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I installed NoScript just a few days ago, because I’m forced to use a really weak computer that struggles to even browse the modern web. I feel like NoScript improved it a lot, and while quite a few websites broke (including lemmy) (but most will still display the content), I just set the ones that I need working to trusted, but the performance is still good (I should note I’m also using it in conjunction with an automatic tab discarter).

      I however also don’t directly use Google. Both SearX and Yandex don’t need javascript, so I’m unaffected by these news, despite being a bit mad about it as a reflection of the direction the web is going as a whole.

    • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I started disabling JavaScript by default with uBlock Origin a few months ago. I am surprised to report that a bunch of sites work fine without JavaScript.

      There are definitely some sites that actually need it, and for those, it’s just one click to permanently allow for that site. But most of the sites I need work better with just CSS and HTML because there are no stupid nags or social media sign-in buttons that pop-up anymore.

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I just disabled Javascript and Google still works fine. It might be only Google’s mobile site that requires it.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Where are you? The JavaScript block also seems to disable reader mode, so maybe they serve a different page in places with accessibility requirements

      • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        When they were purchased it was with the understanding that they would get no user data and that Startpage does not collect it, and it has the same CEO who started the company so I believe him.

    • underscores@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think they switched to usually using bing results last year. Their support site mentions they use both backends. I’d guess which one you get depends on which API is cheaper for each country.

      • WolvenSpectre@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        It turns out it went multi-engine, probably to prevent getting cut off of Google’s Results. It probably mixes results from multiple engines like the old multi engine search engines in the old days of the internet.

  • ruekk@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    As a former web dev, good. I didn’t get paid enough to care about the people that block JavaScript