>>rvnx+o2
This is an infuriatingly poor error message if the problem is disabled JavaScript. Surely they can detect that and show a proper error instead of trying to be cute with this "Your browser is a bit unusual" junk?
>>alias_+44
It's hard to differentiate between completely disabled JavaScript, some individual JavaScript files being blocked by an (overzealous?) ad blocker, and the browser not implementing some required JavaScript feature.
>>pdw+k5
I've been using NoScript for about a month full-time.. and it's insane the things you can leave blocked and still see a site as it's meant to be. Ads, trackers and internal tools that somehow I have to contribute my data to, and their accompanying libraries EASILY make up 70% of all JS.
>>pluc+x6
> Ads, trackers and internal tools that somehow I have to contribute my data to, and their accompanying libraries EASILY make up 70% of all JS.
Citation needed. Literally 100% of the JS code i've written over the past 24 years has been 100% free of "ads, trackers, and internal tools that somehow users have to contributor their data to."