@alienghic Good question! Though I'm of the mind to think that allowing for sandboxed code to run may even be good... in that I want it in some of my projects (federated MUD, etc, though I wouldn't be using JS). From a software theory, we know how to do it (though, js isn't necessarily following that path). I'm not sure we'll have this particular hardware bug forever... but time will tell if more keep popping up

@alienghic that said I'd like to run less of it

@cwebber The best sandbox is a another computer. I wonder how effective a laptop/desktop designed as a cluster of a phone-class computers would work.

@alienghic @cwebber
@alienghic No, we can't: some scripting in the Web is necessary.
My favorite example is #Mathjax (yes, I know of #MathML); or we just can't draw on sites anything, that isn't already in a standard (compare to #TeX).

@amiloradovsky @cwebber I am still quite cranky about websites that display nothing without javascript turned on.

@alienghic @cwebber I am not usually interested in what these have to show me. Skip.

@alienghic @amiloradovsky @cwebber anyone who isn't cranky about such things doesn't understand the web

@amiloradovsky @alienghic @cwebber

Speaking as a paranoid end user who thinks JavaScript should be disabled by default and enabled only on a per-site basis (with third-party JS banned forever): your inability to render math and graphics without JS isn't my problem.

Just put that material inside a set of noscript tags and let me decide for myself if I want to run your code.

@starbreaker @amiloradovsky @alienghic @cwebber If you're a Firefox+NoScript user, you should already have all of that — I cannot alter the culture and standards of Web development anyway.
If you meant that it should be the default behavior of some browsers — ask them.

@amiloradovsky @starbreaker @cwebber Unfortunately since the business model of the internet is advertising, and a key way ads are sold are via javascript mediated auctions, Neither the browser vendors or the website developers are going to be motivated to move away from javascript.

@alienghic @cwebber @amiloradovsky

I don't care if they "move away" from JS. I just think NoScript should be part of every browser, and not just a Firefox extension. Whether a given site gets to run JS should be the end user's decision, and nobody else's.

@starbreaker @alienghic @cwebber And I just think somebody should give me a million bucks, for free.

The point: implementation is the key in so many people's wishes.

@starbreaker @amiloradovsky @cwebber To be fair, browsing with noscript+request policy is annoying, and it can be hard to know which stupid third party site is needed to actually get the page to render.

@starbreaker @alienghic @cwebber Well, actually, I do agree with that recommendation (if that wasn't clear already).

#Epiphany, for example, a #WebKit-based browser for #GNOME, does look like a capable alternative to the more popular ones (it does even support #MathML, unlike e.g. #Chromium).
But it's inability to run the scripts selectively is one of the main reasons that make me prefer #Firefox.

@yellowfrog I haven't tried it. What's your reasons for preferring it?

@cwebber It gives amazing fine grained control over domains, subdomains, images, scripts, embedding or not. And the author is very modest. https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix #umatrix https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock -> "... For users by users. No donations sought.Without the preset lists of filters, this extension is nothing. So if ever you really do want to contribute something, think about the people working hard to maintain the filter lists you are using, which were made available to use by all for free."