@matigo That's not really the journalists' responsibility, in my opinion, though it's why everyone's wearing masks, goggles, and holding umbrellas (they block the overhead cameras as well as protect from tear gas).
I'm inclined to think it's futile, in any case, as most people don't cover their eyes and ears.
@variablepulserate That's my current view on it as well, but in some cases those sites do have valuable content.
In fairness, The Guardian's photos [theguardian.com] aren't bad at all.
South China Morning Post's, though, are from any perspective terrible.
The quality of photos of the Hong Kong protests is absolutely atrocious, at least based on what I've seen so far. Are photojournalists here — with longer lenses than ever in the history of photography, and autofocus faster than a person can think — so scared that they can't get one decent shot? Truly disappointing.
After reading this article on adblockers and adblocker-blocker-blockers [eff.org], a few thoughts:
What if, then — and this would only be useful for people with decent connections — instead of stopping the ads from loading at all (i.e. discarding the code that fetches ads), we redirected said code to some sandboxed "invisible window"? This invisible window would, from the user perspective, have no graphics and no sound (but would be able to spoof both to report back to the server), and be sandboxed by the browser (no access to the filesystem) it would basically load the ad but direct it straight into the equivalent of /dev/null.
Of course, this kind of implementation is beyond the realm of browser extensions — this would have to be a part of the browser itself.
The ambiguity in most of the emails I receive from the company director…I may annoy him a great deal demanding full clarity before proceeding, but I won't be the one to record an item's price at half what it really is.
iOS needs a "turn off all wake-up alarms until tomorrow because I'm already awake thanks" feature.
