permissions is greyed out in outlook for mac

Permissions is greyed out in outlook for mac full#

They have hard-disabled this feature in the background, and have removed the link to the internal settings page of the feature from Brave’s official settings. You should do some are not excuses, and I am not speaking for the developers, although I have my reasons for posting what I posted. On the one hand, I like your attitude of “making clear assertions, giving examples of sources, and explaining in detail,” but on the other hand, everyone is fed up with your ridiculousness because you are always “obsessed with your own theory, making quibbles around keywords that are convenient for you, and digressing. The other commentors are jerks.” You tend to comment on things like that, but who do you think you are?įrom my point of view, you seem to be nothing more than a “senseless, self-centered, selfish infant.

Recently, you have been acting arrogantly as if you are representing gHacks Tech News, but you should be aware and respectful that you are just a community member (subscriber). This issue was covered in an article in gHacks Tech News, so it was useful to notify gHacks subscribers.Įven in the slightest degree, It’s not because of your existence. Since this was a pending issue raised by Google in May last year, each browser vendor should have been able to prepare (verify) at least that much. If the method displays something incomprehensible, then “some action (at least a “Note” should be added to the page where everyone can see it, etc.)” would be necessary. The inspection method described by Martin is a “normal method” for those with some skills. If they explicitly ask for permission, it’s just annoying and no one will pay attention. In other words, “APIs” that are criticized from many sides should be disabled by default and be an “opt-in” feature. In principle, it should be “secure” by default. So the gist would be something like this. If this was a problem with “your much hated Firefox”, how would you attack it? When I think about it, I can’t help but laugh at the drop in your comment. This is only a small part of the essence of this issue.

Permissions is greyed out in outlook for mac full#

However, your commentary is full of sophistry to “defend” the issue, and you seem to be saying “this is the end of the matter”. Indeed, there is no doubt that the specific current situation in this issue is as you describe it. I enjoyed reading your textbook “excuses” as if you were speaking for the developers. Chromium explicitly asks you for your permission before the feature gets activated, so they see no immediate need to remove it. > As for Ungoogled Chromium, I can kind of see their argument. > Users who have found this page have copied the settings URL into the address bar and pressed enter, this this not what people using Brave would usually do Brave chose the disable-by-default route but that is just automatic denial of the permission – which is also OK in my book, just saying that I don’t blame Ungoogled Chromium for anything Heart,

Users who have found this page have copied the settings URL into the address bar and pressed enter, this this not what people using Brave would usually do, and the settings displayed on this page are inaccurate anyway because the feature is hard-disabled in the background.Īs for Ungoogled Chromium, I can kind of see their argument. No need to do that if users can’t normally access the page from Brave’s regular settings. Whenever Google does anything in relation to the page again in other parts of the code, things would break for Brave.

They don’t remove the internal settings page of the feature because removing it entirely would be an unnecessary maintenance burden. Engineers of the companies believe that the API may be abused for dark usage patterns or to run expensive computations when the device is is as you say, Brave has it strictly disabled by default. While it is true that users need to give permissions to sites before access to the Idle Detection API is granted, sites may convince users to give the permission. Google suggests that sites could use it for a number of useful applications, such as revealing if contacts in chat are available, to reset Kiosk systems automatically after a period, or to run expensive computations only if the user is not idle.Ĭritics of the Idle Detection API, Mozilla and Apple specifically, point out that it has the potential for abuse. A device enters idle state if it is not used actively for a period the API can request the idle state of components or events, such as the keyboard, mouse or screensaver. Called Idle Detection API, it allows sites to query the device to find out whether it is idle or in active use. Google introduced a controversial API in Google Chrome 94 this month.