I think the click bait is assumed. The use of "this one weird trick" is humorous at this point (edit: and I found the article actually interesting/worth reading, the title not really deceptive, which is usually the main problem with click bait. and... yes, it is actually kind of a weird trick?).
To expend on your summary, this trick is necessary on Windows (only), because it does not allow over-committing and also does not have an OOM killer which you can instruct to kill content processes instead of the main process.
> The use of "this one weird trick" is humorous at this point
Only when it's used ironically. If the article uses that as a headline and forces you to read the whole thing before giving so much as a hint what the "one weird trick" is, then it's legitimate clickbait.
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting article. I just think if an article is attempting to humorously use a clickbait headline, then it owes it to the reader to at least add a subheading.
Why? By what measure is this not simple clickbait? Because it's a well-known pattern that has been used to bait people for years already? Because it's targeted at a tech audience? Because it's written by someone from Mozilla? None of these seem like reasons not to go with a more descriptive title.
Yes, exactly, because it's a well known trope by now, it's no longer deceptive and has a completely different meaning now than originally. Originally it was click bait, now it is a shared culture joke.
It's only clickbait if you claim that you have never seen it before. Do you wish to try to claim that?
The title is exactly the same both with and without the trailing extra few words, except one is dry and one attempts to be humorous.
You may for some reason find the attempted humor intolerable, but that's more about you than the article.
There is actually still a clickbaity element, but it's not anything you complained about, it's leaving out a few words to say "on Windows by avoiding overcommittting memory" or similar. Beginning a sentence and withholding the gist so the only way to know the end is to read the article, is indeed click bait.
I generally agree, though it occurred to me that the fact it is now a cultural joke may make you want to know what's behind it, making it a second-order click bait.
I agree but then that makes it "dual use" clickbait, since there's always less-savvy new people coming along.
Someday it will be possible to effectively filter all info that is presented on my devices, and along with anyone/anything mentioning Trump and Musk, overly-clever articles that sound like clickbait will be gone along with the real thing.
It is click bait. It's not really deceptive. It could have been more descriptive indeed. It's hard to summarize in a title though. Probably not impossible. What would you have written?
Anyway, everything fully worked as intended for me: I had some fun reading this title, expected something interesting coming from hacks.mozilla.org and got it.
Remember, this is Mozilla, the same folks who still think, after 20 years, it's the funniest thing in the world to give a cryptic "Zarro boogs found" message to users who are desperately searching the bug tracker to resolve a major software frustration, many of whom aren't native English speakers and won't get the ultra-hip reference.
I understand that some people might have found this cryptic, but they added an explanation, so it's not that cryptic anymore. This problem is fixed. It was not even that cryptic. The first time I encountered this, I was a child and not a native English speaker and I still got it. I find it nice that people try to keep a bit of history/fun.
Now, its not even the same people that are involved in this issue and this article. So no, its not "the same folks".
Anyway, if it's the worst thing you have to complain about Mozilla, we are good I think. People really have weird battles to fight.
Maybe they don't like it the same way I don't like the "aw snap!" error message I've seen more than one place. That one really, really, bugs me. Something just crashed, and you expect me to be ok with you treating it like a joke? Not to mention the assumption that everyone else even finds "aw snap" a natural kind of thing to say instead of about 11 black metro millenials. I think I could never even say the words with a straight face and certainly not be taken seriously if I ever did. I'm failing to articulate just how utterly wrong that error message is. And I am not one of that crowd trying to remove all the life from say the linux source comnents and logs. It's not about any deviation from absolute sterility, there is something very out of touch about that particular example.
>I understand that some people might have found this cryptic, but they added an explanation, so it's not that cryptic anymore.
Right. After about 15 years, they finally relented. So, your position is, "it's not a problem, but they deserve credit for fixing that problem that shouldn't have been fixed"?
>Anyway, if it's the worst thing you have to complain about Mozilla, we are good I think.
Where are you getting that? When Mozilla did something stupid, I pointed to a related, similar stupid decision, originating from the same cultural practices. From that, you twist my words into meaning that's the only thing there is to criticize? That's the mind of an ideologue, not an honest evaluation for truth.
But, if you want to stay in the mentality of automatically trivialzing every unforced error on the part of Mozilla, then, by all means, apply that same reflexive defense to these cases as well!
- Looking Glass: Forcing a cryptic extension on users that accustoms them to ignoring changes that look like software compromise.[3]
- The fact that, post-2016-update, we still don't have the same add-on functionality as before, including the ability to customize controls.
- Not allowing side-loading of unsigned add-ons "because security" even though Chome has long allowed this with no issue.
- Then neglecting to keep the signing key up-to-date. [1]
- Then making previously-signed add-ons stop working as a result of that, compromising user privacy, possibly causing users in hostile countries to be killed. [1]
- Then assuring users that, no, it's okay because we can remotely force updates via an opt-out feature buried in "studies".[2]
All of those are worse, so no, the shitty, confusing in-joke at the expense of frustrated bug victims isn't actually the worst part about Mozilla, it's just the most relevant to the OP's comment. But sure, it provides a convenient way for you to imply that nothing else is wrong with Firefox.
>People really have weird battles to fight.
I'm sorry, what? Wanting a universal, everyday-utility software product to be accessible outside of a small clique ... is a weird battle to fight? That mentality is exactly Mozilla's problem!
> Right. After about 15 years, they finally relented. So, your position is, "it's not a problem, but they deserve credit for fixing that problem that shouldn't have been fixed"?
I didn't say this. At all. My position is "this minor issue is fixed now and does not really deserve any attention whatsoever anymore, didn't much at the time neither [, let's move on to actual problems]". I'm not saying Mozilla is perfect and don't have flaws. They have many. Some of which you have listed. And including their main source of cash. But this "Zaroo bogs found" thing? I appreciate that you don't agree with me, but sorry, it seems so irrelevant! By the way, how many regular, non-technical users face Bugzilla? None that I know of, and I'm surrounded by Firefox users. Most users don't write bug reports. And Firefox's bug reporting system is rather nice anyway, compared to other systems. It's localized, clear to follow, etc.
> post-2016-update, we still don't have the same add-on functionality as before
For the better and the worse, we are never getting this back. I hope you are not holding your breath over it. It's not happening. There are good maintainability and security reasons for this. We have the right to not agree with this but we are not the ones who maintain the browser. I work for a company that allows its software to be highly user customizable, it's our strength but that's not free and it comes with its own issues. We are stuck with old tech forever and cannot move very fast. I personally believe the restrictions are for the best.
> Wanting a universal, everyday-utility software product to be accessible outside of a small clique ... is a weird battle to fight
I didn't say this. I want this too. But Firefox is definitely already accessible outside of a small clique.
> From that, you twist my words into meaning that's the only thing there is to criticize?
I didn't say this. I said "IF". My sloppy phrasing really meant "that does not seem a big deal, of all the issues you could have found around Firefox and Mozilla".
> That mentality is exactly Mozilla's problem!
First, I have nothing to do with Mozilla, and second, I believe Mozilla is actually successful at providing software everyone can use.
I'm a native English speaker and had no idea it was meant to be particularly funny or hip; I just assumed it was done kind of in-joke, common enough in FOSS. But it didn't seem very confusing since the next line explains: "We couldn't find any bugs matching your search terms. You could try searching with fewer or different terms."
In-Jokes are only ever going to be funny for those within that group; that's pretty much what defines them. Since I'm not in any Mozilla hacking group I wouldn't know whether it's so, or just a bit of silliness, but either way it doesn't add more than a one-time bump.
To expend on your summary, this trick is necessary on Windows (only), because it does not allow over-committing and also does not have an OOM killer which you can instruct to kill content processes instead of the main process.