Re: duckduckgo
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 20:50:05 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:19:37 -0400
> Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:23:44 +0200
> > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:26:20PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 22:52:07 +0200
> > > > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > I certainly need to use numerous sites
> > > > (bill paying, banking, etc.) that require JS to function.
> > >
> > > There's no clear-cut, generally valid thing here. I've the luck to
> > > live in a country (Germany) where an open protocol for banking
> > > exists (HBCI), and a free software implementing that protocol. So,
> > > thanks $DEITY, I just can do my bank things from the command line.
> > > There are other things (tax decl), where I've to use my browser,
> > > with javascript. This browser runs in a separate user session, with
> > > another user ID.
> >
> > Yes, I'm a bit jealous of you Europeans in this regard ;)
>
> In the UK, pretty much all retail sites that do some kind of product
> display need JS. I compromise in that I'll allow JS from the named site
> and other sites clearly related to it but not from anyone else.
I think the same is largely true in the US. E.g., a typical Newegg.com
page won't display product images unless JS is allowed from both
newegg.com and neweggimages.com
Celejar
Reply to: