I FUCKING HATE JAVASHIT

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options79878
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1695748029670.webm (14.71 MB, 664x664, Intellectual_Property_Sta….webm)

I FUCKING HATE JAVASHIT Anonymous 26-09-23 17:07:09 No.21699

>remove.bg
>rely on this every day
>literally ctrl+v an image in
>it crops out the focused object with 90% accuracy
>saves me from having to crop stuff by hand
>can just right click -> copy image when I'm done
>paste it directly into GIMP
>it was perfect

<they "update it"
<it goes way slower now by giving you a stupid animation
<they wrap the actual image file in some javashit so you can't actually right click and copy the image anymore (artificial scarcity moment)
<try to inspect in browser console
<the url is a fucking blob link now
<they harass you to make an account
<you need to click the big blue download button for retards

this is like the 7th website I use that has become victim to the javashit enshittification process. I would say kill all web developers but I know it's really porky responsible for this, trying to desperately grasp onto private property by arbitrarily putting digital "commodities" that have almost 0 Socially Necessary Labor Time required to create behind paywalls and javashit. But web devs could simply refuse to implement these shitty features, but they have petit booj brain and are too handsomely paid to form a union, let alone refuse to implement porky's designs.

Anonymous 26-09-23 18:43:52 No.21702

What does this have to do with JavaScript?

Anonymous 26-09-23 18:55:29 No.21703

>>21702
i don't know because I'm retarded. all i know is that javashit apps love to block previously-accessible files, especially images and videos, behind blob urls and other shit, making them inaccessible to the end user. It's porky shit and I don't like it. I'M NOT EDUCATED ENOUGH OK?!?!?!?!? I'LL JUST PUT IN 10K MORE HOURS TO UNDERSTAND WHY I'M MAD

Anonymous 26-09-23 22:39:09 No.21704

File: 1695767949438.png (216.7 KB, 912x1024, zemandOFWv9WgAAAABJRU5ErkJ….png)

>>21699
>they wrap the actual image file in some javashit so you can't actually right click and copy the image anymore (artificial scarcity moment)
just screenshot it

Anonymous 27-09-23 03:29:33 No.21706

i kind of like overwrought websites as long as they're creative

Anonymous 27-09-23 12:36:10 No.21708

File: 1695818170041.jpg (34.9 KB, 497x373, c6e.jpg)

this is your punishment for letting yourself be a used

Anonymous 28-09-23 13:11:30 No.21723

File: 1695906690314.mp4 (542.77 KB, 720x480, me.mp4)

>>21699
>try selecting text
>it doesn't select

Anonymous 28-09-23 14:01:35 No.21724

>>21723
special place in GNU/lag for whoever at the W3C decided that was a good idea to put in CSS

Anonymous 28-09-23 23:54:59 No.21726

>>21704
you can't screenshot it with the transparent checkered background, then it won't be a transparency anymore. the whole point was a PNG transparency
>>21699
OP I've also used that site and noticed that the other day. they fixed it though, I came back today and I could right click copy image again. So whatever they did they reversed it.

Anonymous 29-09-23 05:06:17 No.21727

>>21699
these are attempts to lock down what is supposed to be an open web.
javascript was built by a corp to add complexity to web pages and for years it was a broken mess until corps flooded the standards bodies with their own people to align with their goal of making more complex and locked down "webapps" instead of just pages.
now most of the internet doesn't even work if you don't allow every page to download 1MB of minified js junk that needs some "v8" intepreter shit in your browser to execute.
it's basically java applets, but more broken and insecure and the jvm is bundled with your browser.

Anonymous 29-09-23 11:26:16 No.21733

>>21726
>you can't screenshot it with the transparent checkered background
then just erase the background in GIMP with transparency on and then save as png.
>>21723
>>21724
>what are custom stylesheets?
>what is the reader function in firefox?
>what is archive.is?
how are you so helpless?

Anonymous 02-10-23 15:35:08 No.21797

>>21733
Shouldn't need custom stylesheets, f*refox or archive.is to begin with

Anonymous 02-10-23 18:25:59 No.21798

>>21733
>how are you so helpless?
why are you assuming all 3 people you're quoting are the same person?

Anonymous 02-10-23 18:26:36 No.21799

>>21733
>then just erase the background in GIMP with transparency on and then save as png.
OP is complaining that something that used to be fast is now slow, not that it's impossible.

Anonymous 02-10-23 20:00:33 No.21800

>>21797
>Shouldn't need custom stylesheets
Why would you let the same web developers who fill the site with useless javashit decide how the website looks?
>>21798
I'm not. "You" is also a plural pronoun.
>>21799
>OP is complaining
I know. But I am a bad listener, in toxic male fashion I always offer a solution rather than empathise and nod. r/twoxchromosomes might be a better fit?

Anonymous 03-10-23 17:51:50 No.21803

>>21699
OP, this will be far worse when they mass implement web assembly and the front end code becomes an opaque binary rather than code you can even look through to begin with

Anonymous 25-11-23 07:05:51 No.22553

>>21800
>in toxic male fashion I always offer a solution rather than empathise and nod. r/twoxchromosomes might be a better fit?
/pol/ might be a better fit for you. Something that used to take me 5 seconds now takes me 20 minutes because I have to go back to doing it manually. Your "solution" was plainly obvious to me before you offered it. And there was nothing "male" about it. I was doing it for years before remove.bg showed up. They went back to not allowing me to copy the image btw.
>>21803
grrrrrr

Unique IPs: 15