I'm not sure how long ago you tried Gatsby, but TypeScript doesn't require setup anymore. Just change the file extensions to .tsx/.ts and it works. It also does incremental builds.
Gatsby handles pages in src/pages the same way except it doesn't use placeholders in the filenames. You generate dynamic pages by writing a function. Check out these videos.
Right, graphql - I'm not sure how I forgot about that. We really disliked this part of Gatsby, but I know some people really like it. I can't criticize it really - it probably comes down to preference.
I guess it's been longer than I thought! Incremental builds wasn't even on the roadmap when we migrated.
I guess it depends on what you're building. For me the graphql is one of the most useful features. I've only used Next a little, but much prefer Gatsby. I don't think Next is bad though.
Do you think that Wikipedia doesn't want traffic? When people land on Wikipedia it creates brand recognition and the opportunity for them to ask for support from those visitors, which is what keeps Wikipedia going. Some of those users will edit pages while they are there.
What Google is doing is terrible, especially for smaller sites. Those sites depend on traffic to survive.
AMP makes things even worse, because now the visitors never actually go to the website's own independent servers, even if "the content" loads, and Google dictates how the sites have to be built. Web publishers are in the process of losing control of their websites and independence.
It's hard to make that argument when you control the browsing device that tells users that they are in private mode, but then identify specific devices and users from the other end of the network with your other product.
Firefox's private browsing feature blocks tracking scripts. Edge's doesn't as far as I can tell, and I haven't looked into the behavior of smaller Chromium-based browsers.
> Now you can browse privately, and other people who use this device won't see your activity. However, downloads and bookmarks will be saved. Learn more
Note that it says that Chrome will not save said information. It does not (even the "learn more" pages, sorry, I couldn't be bothered to dive deep into the ToS over minor internet discussions) say anywhere that Google will not save said data. It does say that it won't be saved to _your_ Google account but that could mean a lot of things.
Of course, it doesn't mean anything, it is just paranoid thinking. A major multibillion corporation with a business based on tracking and advertising wouldn't simply store your "private" data for any reason, especially when there was no way to find out about it, enforce it not to, and punish it, if it transgressed.
Does it specifically say that although Chrome doesn’t save the information Google is saving it? The distinction between “Chrome won’t save information” and “information won’t be saved” is legally important to Google and intentionally unclear/misleading to the average Chrome user.
Google is a company. Their tracking code isn't a website. It doesn't mention to users that that their private browsing mode doesn't actually protect users from their other products.
Yes, because it is not relevant. The website the user is browsing is what decided to put Google Analytics code on their page. It is their responsibility to tell their users that Google will get this data.
I think that would be a disingenuous argument from Google. Google is directly receiving the analytics data and then feeding only a portion of it to the website. They know that users are easily confused and don't fully understand that one Google product doesn't respect another Google product's "privacy" settings. Most of them probably don't even know what Google Analytics is or how Google makes money by tracking them.
There is no 'privacy' setting being flouted, other than one that's been entirely imagined up by commenters here.
In fact, if anything people should be against this kind of interaction between two completely independent arms of Google. Isn't that what the "Break Google Up" crowd wanted?
Right, just imagine the outcry if Chrome were working on countermeasures for incognito mode detection but also sent a proprietary message to Google Analytics to identity when someone is in incognito mode....
I'm not sure what it has to do with breaking up Google. I'm just saying that they are leading users to think that Google will stop tracking them if they turn on Google's private browsing mode.
The average user doesn't know what private browsing really mode means. If Google says you are in private browsing mode and that some other "websites and ISPs" might still track you, they aren't being clear that Google itself is still knowingly tracking you.
Google is not the ambiguous other "websites and ISPs." They are the ones making the claim that you are in private mode with a Google product, even though you aren't.
Users don't know how things work. They read that as if Google is respecting privacy, not tracking everything they do.
People are naïve when it comes to this: had a manager some years ago who used to watch porn usin company's phone in private mode.Got asked to attend a meeting in the head office just to be shown pages upon pages of browsing activities he had,while at work. Nearly got kicked out.
In my current job I did tell pretty much everyone ( to their surprise) that private mode won't stop me from asking network logs from our IT support company.
It only works in Chrome. The Web has now been split in two, and you now have to use Google Chrome to be on the faster version. Google is shamefully abusing its power in several places here.
Google is unethically abusing their power against non-Chromium browsers like Firefox. Speed matters in the eyes of users, even if we individually block AMP. See the link below for a general pattern.
Google just gives users what they want. I've checked the link you provided and the website is total wreck in terms of user experience (subscription popup, large obtrusive ad banners and so on).
I have push notification disabled but it wouldn't be surprise for me if they asking to subscribe for push notifications on the first page view.
Current era of content websites is a disaster except few cases like medium and maybe reddit with a discount.
AMP is an only solution for general users who just want to google a cooking recipe or latest news in their town.
They have been trying to make it so that users can't tell if they are on real webpages or AMP pages, and it looks like they finally implemented it. AMP is about Google, tracking, and ads, not page speed, even if they have convinced many of their engineers that it's about page speed.
Web publishers don't necessarily want their content decoupled from their own servers, but they don't have a choice now if they depend on traffic from Google.
You should take a hard look at what you're doing. It's breaking the web by enabling Google to embrace, extend, and extinguish. AMP and Signed HTTP Exchanges aren't agreed upon web standards, and Mozilla calls the technology harmful.
That isn't a main reason. People are going to use the internet either way. Google is making a power grab by breaking web standards (embrace, extend, extinguish), and companies like Cloudflare are enabling them.
Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP Exchanges as harmful.
You're in this thread a lot, and you keep referencing "Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP exchanges as harmful". Is this all that important? Should Mozilla support it in 6 months as they always do with their follow-chrome-dont-lose-marketshare approach, will you also support it? In every comment, you are focusing on the "Google is evil" part of it, instead of focusing on "Are HTTP Exchanges themselves bad?", "is this an insecure protocol?", "Could it be used to impersonate a domain?".
The only reason signed HTTP Exchanges are a thing is because Google is trying to solve a problem with user experience (the URL bar). AMP and exchanges are just a different protocol and method of hosting content on a CDN. In this case, you are forced to reduce your page size and you delegate your HTML to be loaded by a third-party, contrary to that of a traditional CDN where you would (for example) create a CNAME in your DNS.
Wow that is disgusting. Why does it need to include remote code to function? How can they even pretend this is an open standard when it has a backdoor?
The point there is that is it not supported by Mozilla. Google has strong-armed publishers into implementing their websites in a restricted Google format that speeds up websites just for Google Chrome and Google Chromium-based browsers. It's an unethical power grab by Google on multiple levels.
