Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Edward Doan
3,734 followers -
A Googler in Austin
A Googler in Austin

3,734 followers
About
Edward's interests
View all
Edward's posts

Post has shared content
Chrome doesn't actually kill Flash-enabled sites.
Tech reporters, please fact-check your articles.

Various sites last night began reporting that Chrome 55 blocks Flash, except for a "top 10 list" of sites.

Except that it doesn't, and the details are in various posts on this public discussion thread: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-dev/ad7Posd6cdI

Basically, starting sometime this month, 1% of Chrome 55 users (rather than all users) will be assigned to an experiment which uses HTML5 by default over Flash when possible. On some sites this isn't possible and will trigger prompts to re-enable Flash instead. These prompts will only occur on sites whose Site Engagement score is lower than 1 (meaning the user has never visited the site before).

If all goes well, Chrome 56 will increase this rollout to all users, and then throughout 2017 the minimum Site Engagement score will be increased, gradually widening the scope of prompting, so that sites the user uses the most will be affected last. (This gives sites time and motivation to change to something other than Flash while minimizing the negative impact of this on their users.) The browser will also remember the response to the prompt so users aren't forced to say "yes" every time.

I know "Chrome kills Flash" is a more exciting headline than the above, but it's also a misleading one. And explicitly reporting details discarded months ago, like the "top 10 list" idea, is just lazy.

(PS: More about the "blocking" here is at https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/106_KLNJfwb9L-1hVVa4i29aw1YXUy9qFX-Ye4kvJj-4/edit#slide=id.p .)

Post has attachment
This is amazing for in-product help! I highly recommend it if you're using Google Apps for school or work.

Post has attachment
Broadcasting +Google Science Fair​ via Snapchat to reach the target audience (<18 y.o. students) is brilliant!

Great job, GSF team!
Photo

Post has shared content
Love my Chromecasts!! I even keep one in my bag for wireless presentations.

Post has attachment
The Iron Throne!
Photo

Post has attachment
Flowers in Uruguay
Photo

Post has attachment
+Michael Vogt​ - I feel like I've seen this movie before.

Post has attachment
Chúc Mừng Năm Mới! Happy Lunar New Year!

Post has shared content
PSA : Take a look at the cable in the picture below. If you find a deal online for a cable that looks anything like this on Amazon, Ebay, or a site like Alibaba, don't buy it. AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS.

I've looked through my history of reviews online and I have in the past purchased at least 8 different variants of this cable for review. I dug up each of these cables from my collection of bad cables since the SurjTech cable (which looks exactly like the one in the picture) fried my equipment and did some additional testing.

With some exceptions, most cheaper cables you'll buy on Amazon aren't manufactured by the brand that sells them to you. They typically go to some common suppliers with specifications and put their brand on it. (as an aside, that's why cables from iOrange-E, Cambond, F-color, and other brands are so similar in a good way).

In this case, there is a common manufacturer for the following brands that I can see on Amazon today : 
* iKNOWTECH
* NXET
* SurjTech
* TRADERPLUS
* SAWAKE

What's troubling is that when I examine the different variants of the cables from this common manufacturer, none of the variants are correctly configured using a 56 kΩ resistor, but their errors are also not consistent!

Here are the types of errors I found with this kind of cable : 
1) No CC termination
2) 5.1kΩ pullup 
3) 5.1kΩ pulldown
4) 10 kΩ pullup
5) Swapped Vbus and Gnd + 10kΩ pulldown

The last kind of cable killed my equipment. It almost seems like the manufacturer is just trying random permutations of settings and pushing out the result into the market. Scary...

Furthermore, and here's the coup de grace, EVERY one of these cables claim to be SuperSpeed 10gbps USB 3.1 cables with the logo (the SuperSpeed trident below), the packaging, and the Amazon listings.

Every single one of these "strong" braided cables are missing the 4 additional SuperSpeed wires + 1 ground return needed by SuperSpeed. This is such a terrible deception. :(

I urge anyone to keep an eye out for this kind of cable and simply ignore it. I will leave as many negative reviews as I can, but it seems like random sellers pop up on Amazon and elsewhere selling this deceptive product every day.

#USBC   #USB   #TypeC  
Photo

Post has attachment
1100 of my friends here for the #TCEA16 Google Academy
Photo
Photo
2/1/16
2 Photos - View album
Wait while more posts are being loaded