Thanks for sharing your thoughts and continuing the discussion on reviews. I agree that the reviewer should be precise and constructive with their comments.
Thanks everyone for the super insightful discussion! I have learnt a lot from the comments, and I have also updated my blog post accordingly. You can find the updated version at the same link.
Unrelated but you can also block ads with the FF mobile browser using ublock origin. I understand playing videos with screen locked is a big plus for brave though.
Coincidentally Discord was almost named Bonfire until they changed it (https://gist.github.com/advaith1/540543d6a2b7fd66abdb0eb02c0...). The two are quite distinct though: most obvious being able to host your own instance and the code being open source. No other connection that I can see, though.
You are right about requiring more case studies. In the same context, MV3 extensions are being moved away from persistent background pages to ephemeral service workers. There's a thread and several very popular crbugs for how the web-based service workers don't work well for extensions (https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72). Given all this, the Chrome team continues with the change citing increased performance when using service workers. However, even when extension developers continue to come out with claims of decreasing performance, the Chrome team - as in the malware case - has not provided any case studies on how it is so sure about the increased performance (or efficiency, memory use, etc.) of SWs.
Seems very comprehensive. I'm curious to hear how it differs from the Git book's or github's tutorial on git. My understanding is that the article starts off kinda similar to them but then quickly changes into a big FAQ about "how to do X in git", which is very useful as a reference but not a tutorial.
