zlacker

Didn't the new Chrome update break uBlock, or is that just for my test cell? I've been in mourning...

>>a123b4+(OP)
Vote with your clicks. Switch to Firefox

>>a123b4+(OP)
re-enable it or if not there is ublock origin lite which I believe is legit

>>a123b4+(OP)
Yes, but it still works fine with Firefox.

>>satiat+s7
That's not the only extension Firefox still allows that's blocked in Chrome. FF also blocks 3rd party cookies and has shown no interest in Google's "privacy sandbox" tracking features. Funny how much better a browser can be without a massive conflict of interest

>>a123b4+(OP)
well if you are still gonna browse on chrome don't settle for the ublock originless experience.

* download a release zip: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/releases (expand Assets). * go to chrome://extensions, toggle developer mode on * click load unpacked and select the file you unzipped the release

then you also have to watch out because chrome will, still time later, disable ublock origin. You have to go to your extensions page and find the option for 'Keep it for now' or something. Then you can continue to browse the internet like a real gee! Thanks ublock origin!

>>ge96+t4
> ublock origin lite which I believe is legit

It is, just not as capable as before due to the Manifest v3 changes.

>>a123b4+(OP)
Use Brave if you want to stick with a Chromium browser. Their ad blocker still works great.

>>bloppe+Qk
I agree with you that Firefox is better, but it's not for lack of conflict of interest. No browser that is funded by any means other than user payments or donations is going to be free of a conflict of interest, and in Firefox's case Google funds them.

>>lolind+dA
Sure, but it matters why Google is funding them. Google funds Mozilla in order to keep them afloat as a foil to detract from antitrust scrutiny. That's only credible if Google does not exert any kind of pressure over them as a condition for that funding. If they did exert that kind of pressure, it would completely defeat the purpose of funding them in the first place.

So I don't consider that to create a conflict of interest.

>>a123b4+(OP)
The following CSS equivalent worked for me, using the "Custom CSS by Denis" Chrome extension[1]:

    ytd-rich-grid-renderer div#contents {
      /* number of video thumbnails per row */
      --ytd-rich-grid-items-per-row: 5 !important;
    
      /* number of Shorts per row in its dedicated section */
      --ytd-rich-grid-slim-items-per-row: 6 !important;
    }

I first tried it with the "User JavaScript and CSS" extension, but somehow it didn't seem able to inject CSS on YouTube. Even a simple `html { border: 5px solid red; }` would not show anything, while I could see it being applied immediately with the "Denis" CSS extension.

If someone can recommend a better alternative for custom CSS, I'd be interested to hear it. I guess Tampermonkey could work, if you have that.

[1] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/custom-css-by-denis...

>>bloppe+uC
Mozilla drags its feet on browser improvements to appease the overlord.

>>a123b4+(OP)
Chrome should still support CSS style managers such as Stylus.

You can put the relevant CSS into a custom YouTube stylesheet if you like.

(I re-skin many sites, including HN, see my profile page for links to recent-ish CSS.)

>>darepu+Cm
It's annoying to have to constantly check for updates manually this way tho.

Switching over to firefox is the ultimate best option, regardless of any faults that firefox has.

>>kevin_+9J
Mozilla config makes the old Windows registry look logically organized and named.

(try to disable cache, for example...)

i am unclear if Google merely counts on Mozilla acting like a reincarnation of the living-fossil that is the Apache foundation, or if their money steers this.