> Your browser is not comparable to the dataset, so we have avoided showing you inaccurate results.

Yup. Because I use my own browser. Built from scratch with exception of V8, Stylo html5ever, and a few other bits and bobs. A fresh new rendering engine in Rust and all. Not a fork of any existing engine. Native support for uBlock Origin filter lists and custom filters. It scores above ~20 in speedometer as of today and covers WPT about 89%. Will be publishing it soon as permissive open source.

Ran their fingerprinting test.

CSS Colours SelectedItem and SelectedItemText was the only problematic one, and uniquely identified me to less than 0.0054 of Linux users.

Why?

Oh, damn. I thought this was about the uniqueness of human fingerprints or similar.

I wonder if this took into account GPU render-time fingerprinting? The minute timing differences in how you render an image are still used to identify you.

I read they're not releasing the details - that seems good (for the public). Hopefully they're releasing it to privacy-friendly browser makers.

I understand that the HN crowd is composed of many different people with radically different interests and opinions, so an "average HN opinion" would be mostly meaningless, but still...

I find it mildly amusing that HN both loudly complains about bots scraping their websites AND is very interested in user privacy.

The conflicting part is that user privacy automatically means that you cede any control over how exactly does the user accesses your resource. Whether they use a web browser or an automated scraper. Any attempt to analyze requests to tie different requests made by the same actor together automatically means privacy violation.

I don't have a good answer to this dilemma yet, I just thought that this is a curious observation and wanted to share.

funny how enabling letterboxing causes me to be in "under 100 samples" category

btw, is pixelRatio controllable somehow? how do I set it to 1, most common value?

[dead]