does /g/ use ublock extra?

>>62287611
>The extension is useful only for Chromium-based browsers. There is no need for such an extension so far on Firefox, and thus there is no version for Firefox.
>chromecucks

File: Screenshot from 2017-09-06 16-02-30.png (2KB, 153x48px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 153x48px

>>62287708
dafuq u mean no version for Firefox, is your head up your ass

>>62287770
github/gorhill/uBO-Extra

>>62287770
that's uBlock you stupid nigger, he was talking about uBlock extra

Yes, but just yesterday I had it fail to stop an adblock workaround.

>>62287611
>botnet users need an extra addon because their overlord doesn't want them to block ads

File: 2ec.png (178KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 327x316px

>>62288827
>falling for the brave meme

File: Screenshot_2017-08-29-17-42-10.png (13KB, 376x672px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 376x672px

>>62287611
For mobile?
> No.

>>62288972
>blocking only the ads that basically beg to be blocked

>>62288972
wait, how do you get extensions on mobile?

>>62289327
It looks like he hacked desktop chrome onto mobile

>>62287708
>>62288827
Only reason that it's only available for Chrome currently is the companies doing the anti adblock measures are only targeting Chomium based browsers. Some of those anti adblock measures, such as reverse proxies that disguise third party requests as first party requests and break all host based ad/script controls, can just as easily be applied to every other browser out there if the developers of those measures wanted to.

>This extension is useful only on a predetermined set of sites, it won't do anything outside that specific set of sites. The following link shows on which site uBO-Extra is useful:

>https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO-Extra-is-useful

Only these dumb sites? Waste of ram desu

File: Capture.jpg (20KB, 395x242px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 395x242px

>>62289662
>Only these dumb sites?
Pic related to a very dumb site

>>62288972
Your adblocker seems to be failing to block the giant ad in the middle of your screen.

>>62289845
Seems about right

Also, use PNG to screen capture, you dumb fucking tard.

>>62289845
BTFO

>>62290134
No thanks I'll just let Snipping Tool do its default thing.

>>62288827
What are you even talking about? Ungoogled-chromium, Iridium and Inox browser exist.

>>62290134
>use PNG to screen capture, you dumb fucking tard.
Have fun with your file bloat. There's no reason to use PNG over GIF if there isn't a picture included.

>>62290182
Ya i know right? those dumb fucks using bloated formats like FLAC when 64kbps MP3 exist.

File: .gif (897KB, 800x430px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 800x430px

>>62290182
>gif
>smaller than png
I think you mean jpeg

File: test.gif (13KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 725x572px

>>62290204
>those dumb fucks using bloated formats like FLAC when 64kbps MP3 exist.
Except the extra color support PNG offers isn't needed for text and you can't notice the difference. You don't need more than 256 colors for a screenshot of text.

File: test.png (30KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 725x572px

>>62290330
Now again as a PNG.

File: test75.jpg (32KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 725x572px

>>62290358
Now again as a JPG at 75% quality to match the size of the PNG.

>>62290279
JPG is shit for text.

File: test20.jpg (14KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 725x572px

>>62290387
And one more JPG at 20% quality to match the size of the GIF. You thought the artifacts in the previous image were bad?

File: test.png (22KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 725x572px

>>62290358
fag

File: 1504738904105.png (10KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 725x572px

>>62290402
And now as a properly saved PNG. Use the superior format.

>>62290458
what optimizer did you use

>>62290473
Indexed instead of RGB. Fucking hell man.

>>62290440
>but if I take the extra time to run the image through an optimizer it's better
Until that's built into whatever I'm using for screen shots, it's still shit.

File: 1504738904105.png (11KB, 725x572px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 725x572px

>>62290489
My image editor automatically treats all PNGs with an optimizer. Here is the same picture without optmizations.

>>62287611
"Ad Blockers" are for brainlets. uMatrix makes YOU the ad blocker. The power is in your hands.

>>62292333
You should look at what uBlock Origin Extra does. It stops things that host based controls like uMatrix don't, such as ads disguised as first party requests by a reverse proxy that won't be blocked if you allow first party scripts with uMatrix (which are necessary to use some features on most sites).