• @ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1361 year ago

      So this is part of a larger adblock checker, if the ad doesn’t load within 5 seconds, it fails and triggers the adblocker warning. Since the ad should load in 3, they’ve set it for 5. If you have ubo, you won’t see the warning that it then wants to pop up, it just seems (and is) a 5 second delay. Changing the UA probably removes this from Firefox because then the clientside scripts will attempt to use builtin Chrome functions that wouldn’t need this hacky script to detect the adblock. Since they don’t exist, it just carries on.

      • @localhost443@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        321 year ago

        I was wondering how badly out of context the above quote must be considering the UA isn’t checked in the function. Above poster is trying to construe it as a pure and simple permanent delay for Firefox.

        That being said, the solution is still bullshit.

        • @Adalast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          131 year ago

          That is just the timeout function, not the call stack. It is likely called in a function that uses a UA check.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          I was wondering how badly out of context the above quote must be considering the UA isn’t checked in the function. Above poster is trying to construe it as a pure and simple permanent delay for Firefox.

          The UA check can happen before the function is called though.

      • @Thermal_shocked@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 year ago

        The thing that gets me is they think no one will ever find this stuff. There are hundreds of thousands of people (maybe more) who are actively looking ways to block ads and get around this behavior. There’s no way it’ll ever go unnoticed.

        • Natanael
          link
          fedilink
          English
          171 year ago

          They could literally have used some variance in implementation, server side bandwidth limitations, etc, but THIS is just blatantly obvious

              • @fossilesque@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                61 year ago

                The world runs on the shoulders of disgruntled employees. This smells like a deliberate act backed up with a paper trail to protect the guy in charge of implementing it from taking the blame. But, I realise that also may be my imagination… It’s a compelling tale regardless.

                • Cosmic Cleric
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  61 year ago

                  The world runs on the shoulders of disgruntled employees.

                  That’s one hell of a phrase that should keep any CEO awake at night.

          • @Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -41 year ago

            I believe that Google is just trolling people real hard. There are much better ways to disable any adblocks, but they are not even trying.

      • @TrippaSnippa@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        No, the full context of the code snippet doesn’t appear to check the browser user agent at all. Other comments have explained that it’s most likely a lazy implementation of a check for ad blockers.

    • credit crazy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Ok so this is just client side I’d imagine I’d be pretty easy to make an addon that removes the code