I just ate at The Modern in NYC the other day. The Modern is a Michelin star restaurant. I didn't smell cooking. Half the dining experience at Michelin restaurants is all about tightly controlling the inflow of stimuli to your senses. No good restaurant would want you to smell someone else's seafood cooking while you start on desert. Is your experience limited solely to to restaurants with poor HVAC?
I stated specifically outside not inside. You smell cooking from outside since kitchen's are vented. Now in NYC sometimes the vents are on top of a 25 story building and that beautiful NYC post winter stench might cover it up.
If a restaurant has a ton of items on the menu I guarantee you that most of that is just prepared food that is microwaved.
Seems like people are mad that I believe that most food in restaurants are not cooked.
I don't think people are "mad". But you have a track record of saying trivially disproven, unsubstantiated things on HN and you backtrack poorly from them, then you sprinkle in weirdly fixated antagonism like "NYC post winter stench". It's bad posting, and it's wrong besides--the gap between "they don't cook anything" and "they fry frozen appetizers and cook everything else as anyone else would" is not so small that you can handwave it away with "lol people are mad". I mean, hell, Applebee's has had apply-fire-to-food line cooks for twenty years or more. I knew kids in high school who worked there (and we'd go there because we got a discount).
(And if there's any wind at all, modern roof-mount kitchen venting will ensure you don't smell much of anything if there's even moderate wind.)
The last time I ate at Applebee's the food tasted microwaved. I'm no chef but there is a subtle je ne soi quois about microwaved food (pasta specifically) and it was definitely present.
> I don't think people are "mad". But you have a track record of saying trivially disproven, unsubstantiated things on HN and you backtrack poorly from them
I either state my person experience from many years ago. (Don't need to present a research link) OR I present my research. Sorry you don't find me as a positive addition on HN.
I was stating my personal experience of working at a restaurant that had their meals prepared in France was frozen and shipped to America. The preparation was boiled in bags or microwaved and got high dollar for the meals. That is my personal experience.
Long time ago most chains like Applebee's and Tuesday's meals were prepared hours, days or weeks before a person would eat them and either they were boiled in a bag, microwaved or deep fried. This still happens more than people know. That is my statement.
Here is an article on expensive French Restaurants use of pre-pared food.
So I guess me saying that if I can't smell a kitchen cooking food it probably is making pre-pared meals. I could also state that if the menu has hundreds of items they are also pre-pared meals, but to you that is poor posting?
I much rather have a few option that are fresh and that is what the OP Restaurant is doing with robots and one human at a garnish station. Most of America's restaurants do not use fresh food or prepare your food that day. Applebee's has gone out of their way to change the way they make food.
"Today, the country's largest casual dining chain lights up 2,000 new wood-fired grills for a revamped menu with steaks that Applebee's hand-cuts on the premises. Amid the barrage of price-driven industry promotions, Applebee's thinks its upgrade to USDA Choice beef, along with the stacks of logs outside restaurants and the aroma of wood smoke inside, will pique consumer interest. That's something the chain needs right now: In the last fiscal financial year, same-restaurant sales were flat, and this year, Applebee's expects sales to range from a negative 2 percent drop to a 2 percent gain." http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/applebees-bets-big-rel...
>Seems like people are mad that I believe that most food in restaurants are not cooked.
Or, you know, you're just talking out your ass and it's not even remotely true. A lot of menu items just means there's either a lot of prep being done, a lot of the menu items have a reasonably similar set of bases, or both. There's always going to be a certain degree of Sysco stuff that's just bought and dunked into a fryer, but claiming most of a given menu is reheated from a microwave without any further backup other than "lol you can't smell it" is ridiculous.
Perhaps rather anecdotal, but this is why I joined Uber, and did not take my Facebook or Google offers. It feels nice to work on tech that directly impacts lives and how a persons day flows. As opposed to, as you correctly put it, optimizing click bait.
Both Google and Facebook work on "tech that directly impacts lives and how a person's day flows". So far producing more value than Uber has, but Uber provides a valuable service too. And while Google & Facebook's revenue is primarily from their ad business, they're not ad companies, like, say, Rubicon Project.
A thought experiment: suppose my company makes and sells shoes. We're a shoe company, right? Then one day some soda company calls us and says they'll give us money (a generous $10 a pair, our pairs sell for $100, cost $90, hello double profit) if we put their logo on the tongues. Sure, we try it out, shoe sales don't seem negatively affected (they're great shoes) so we keep it and keep taking money for the ad. Basically one guy at our factory coordinates with the soda company to make sure we're paid, and makes sure we have logo supplies and that each tongue has a logo on it, but the rest of us are just focusing on making and selling shoes. Are we still a shoe company? I think yes. What if for every logo'd $100 pair of shoes we sell the soda company pays us $50? $100? What about $200, much more than the cost of the shoe for their ad, such that we start giving away the shoes for free? Still a shoe company then? I still think yes.
Your shoe company is in the business of selling ads at the point where ad revenue exceeds revenue from the manufacture of shoes. The shoes become the medium of delivery of the ad, but the company would as likely give away slips of paper with the logos on if the ad revenue justified it.
A better analogy, in my opinion, is to that of a company that makes billboards: they sell ads, delivered by billboard. They'd stop making the billboards if the ad revenue stopped coming in. Likewise Google would stop working on anything ad-related (and probably switch focus to GCE) if ad revenue dropped appreciably.
Maybe it's a difference of opinion on the purpose of companies. For some people the only purpose of a company is to make money, regardless of how. But for my shoe company, the purpose is to make great shoes for people to wear. Even when the ad revenue is huge, the company wouldn't just as likely give away slips of paper with the logos on it if the ad revenue justified it, because we have no interest in making slips of paper, we just want to make shoes. Similarly, why is the soda company continuing to pay us such high ad revenue unless they think it's justified on their end? Couldn't they make their own shoes, and sell or give those away instead of having to pay us? Except they're in the business of making soda, they have no expertise or desire to make shoes. If the ad revenue dries up, well, we can go back to trying to sell the shoes instead of just giving them away.
The analogy with the company that makes billboards is good if you're trying to point out the fundamental difference between an ad company (there aren't that many of them, despite many companies being funded by ads) and a non-ad company. The only purpose of a billboard company is to make billboards that people see ads on. There's no other reason to make billboards. The day to day of most employees will be about how to most effectively design and position their billboards for better ad delivery and finding advertisers to pay, while a relatively small amount of employees enjoy focusing only on the construction process. The CEO probably doesn't even care about billboards, they just found a nice way to make money.
If Google's ad revenue dropped a lot, there would definitely be a change in focus, but they wouldn't kill off search. They'd probably put some more people on trying to sell Enterprise Search. Google, being a tech company and not an ad company, has tech it can try to sell when the ad revenues go away. An ad company has nothing else. That's the big difference.
What if ad income were so large that the shoe company just gave away your shoes and relied solely on the ad income?
This is where Google and Facebook are, and that makes them ad companies: Their business and design decisions are driven primarily by the objective of increasing ad income.
It just happens that Google and Facebook draw most of their revenue from being middlemen in the advertising industry, the same way Uber is a middleman in the transportation industry -- Uber doesn't have the fixed costs that you'd expect a large cab company to have.
Their business is ad delivery. Apple is a consumer electronics company as they make and sell hardware directed primarily at consumers (as well as niche professional markets – kind of like Panasonic.) Google is an advertising company; the tech they produce is nearly universally focused in some way on the delivery of ads. They make and sell ad delivery.
Search: ad delivery. Any innovations around search are all built for the purpose of making essentially a better billboard.
Gmail: data generation tool that feeds information into Google in order to better traffic ads.
Google analytics: a Trojan horse that trades data to web property owners in exchange for being able to use that data themselves – to better target ads.
Google Fiber: more bandwidth, the more people will be able to use their ad products.
AdWords: ad delivery
AdSense: ad delivery
Chrome: owning the browser means you protect the ability to serve ads.
Google Apps for Business/Gsuite – an exeception to the above that represents a minuscule amount of revenue.
Play Store: if you make Android more attractive, you protect an ability to use Android user data in order to target people to... (drumroll please) serve ads.
All of these X/Skunkworks projects are just hobbies. Google is an ad company, plain and simple. Their entire business is based around “track and serve.” Even self-driving cars: “we noticed you visit REI a lot, how about we drive you to this <new competing store> for a 30% discount off of whatever you were buying at REI?”
Apple is a hardware company – they make software and services so you want to buy their hardware. They are to a lessor extent, a content distribution company but really even that is to support selling Apple hardware. They haven’t changed much since 1984 – make software exclusive to the Mac, so Mac is differentiated from other computers.
Facebook – not even a debate. Track and Serve.
Microsoft might be considered a “true” tech company in the sense that they are essentially a software version of what IBM used to be.
It's disingenuous from the perspective of what it's like to work at a company.
I worked at a comparison shopping site that turned into an SEO house towards the end, after we failed to get direct traffic. The entire company slowly shifted focus improve our SEO, because that's what dragged us away from bankruptcy. Our engineers were tasked with finding ways to get indexed in Google higher, tweaking our site layout constantly. Search became about latency, since Google crawls faster sites faster. Crawling became about getting more content to mix up and show to Google. It became a rather depressing slog, all things together, after we stopped worrying about users and started worrying about SEO. It was explicit and pervasive.
If you work at Google, you only worry about ads if you work on the Ads team. If you work on search, if you work on GMail, if you work on cloud services you work on and worry exclusively about making those products the best they can be, for the users of those products. If I weren't also a user of Google products, I would almost have no idea that Google had ads; they just aren't a salient part of a workaday engineer's job.
You can still argue that from a business perspective every product is tainted, but from an engineering perspective, ads aren't a consideration at all, let alone the first consideration.
That’s absurd. Your argument appears to be “I wish people outside Google didn’t pay so much attention to what business Google is in, because it’s super fun being an engineer working at a place that has a geyser of money coming in from the ads division so engineering can ignore business pretty much completely.”
Yes, that is fun (so say all my friends who work there)! But it’s pretty irrelevant to the conversation about what business Google is in. It’s an advertising company.
Yes, but they do a whole lot of other things, which as you noted, tie back into their main source of revenue.
I don't disagree with what you've written but I think calling them an "ad delivery" business is as accurate as using the tusks as a synecdoche for describing an elephant. Using a well-known part to describe a thing is fine in most cases, except that over time, it blinds people into ignoring the other parts that gives a thing its uniqueness.
> Microsoft might be considered a “true” tech company in the sense that they are essentially a software version of what IBM used to be.
Funny that you use Microsoft.
Among the big 5: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, Microsoft is the most diversified, revenue wise [0].
All companies are tech companies in this day and age, it's a meaningless classifier. But not all companies recieve most of thier money from advertising and selling personal information, which makes ad company relevant classifier.
I'm sure Warren Buffet will disagree with that generalization of all companies being tech companies, especially since he, the quintessential value investor, doesn't consider Berkshire Hathaway as one.
Neither would Carlos Slim. Not that it means anything but at different times, each was once adjudged the wealthiest in the world.
Calling a company a "tech company" speaks primarily to its competitive advantage in printing money, not the industry it is in.
Look at it this way: Big law firms are called that because they hire a lot of lawyers (and lawyer-types); big 4 accounting firms hire a lot of accountants and big 5 tech firms hire a lot of software engineers (or CS majors if you will).
They are called that not because they don't hire HR, IT, finance or other professionals, they are called "big X" because specific professions (lawyers, accountants, software engineers) dominate their hiring.
The quality and quantity of their hires from those professions in turn determine the amount of profit they are able to extract from whichever industry they choose to focus on/dominate.
> They are called that not because they don't hire HR, IT, finance or other professionals, they are called "big X" because specific professions (lawyers, accountants, software engineers) dominate their hiring.
My point would be that if Uber vanished Uber drivers wouldn't, and very rapidly they would be providing their services via alternatives. My feeling is that no one would lose if this happened, apart from Uber's investors.
Not hating on your comment - it's actually rather interesting and informative. What is also interesting to me is how you wrote it:"That company's name? Xxxx" after a description. This reads like click bait. I've noticed an uptick in people writing like this. I wonder if this a trend others are seeing?
That's one of the oldest rhetorical devices in the book. It's a common technique of good storytelling. Clickbait is annoying because of its context, but the reason it works is because those techniques stimulate human curiosity, and increase their enjoyment of the story.
It's really not. BUCK and other build systems make compile lightning fast, and when you have a complex multithreaded bug because of sloppy optimization, faster compiles won't help.
This is exactly the sort of situation where fast compiles often do help, in my view! Debugging is one case where speed of progress can depend on build time, because you need to run the code after each change to see what effect it had and to decide what to do next.
Optimised code is occasionally so cryptic that you'll just waste a few hours figuring out what it does, which basically nullifies the effect of faster compile time.
> when you have a complex multithreaded bug because of sloppy optimization, faster compiles won't help.
Code that cryptic is exactly the kind of code I often want to modify with more instrumentation, logging, sanity checks, test cases, etcetera. "The problem seems to go away if I do X" isn't a real solution, but it can be a great hint at times, especially if you've got a small and relevant resulting difference in the disassembly. "X asserts right at the site of the fundamental bug" is handing you the solution on a gold platter. Slow build times discourage adding these things, and refactoring systems to be harder to misuse. If it takes hours to rebuild your full setup, nobody but the crazy people (such as myself) will touch common headers to preemptively add such things to make the codebase more maintainable.
Even if it's not helping you in the instant, it's helping you in the long run.
> BUCK and other build systems make compile lightning fast
It sounds like you have compile times under control wherever you are. I'm happy for you - and perhaps a little envious ;).
BUCK won't magically solve multi-minute link times. Full builds of a lot of things I've worked on require zipped, compressed, and cryptographically signed packages of gigabytes (which must then be verified, uncompressed, and unpackaged to test) - BUCK et all can't solve this terribly well either. Distributed build systems are pretty magical about solving embarrassingly parallel compiles, although even for compilation it doesn't help me too much when I'm on the bleeding edge doing hours worth of builds just to test a reasonable subset of our build configurations - maxing out a 6-core - before rolling out the latest SDKs and compilers to the rest of the build farm and my coworkers.
There are various tricks one can employ to help keep build/deploy/test cycle times in check for the common case - faster linkers like gold, distributed build systems like BUCK, dev builds which stream unsigned assets from host computers instead of from a package, etc. - but someone has to do the work of setting those all up.
Fertile Crescent* not Middle East. The Middle East is not really an agreed upon fixed set of places, theres a not-insigifnicant variance in how one can describe it.
Decent article - but she does try to stress the brexit references, as well as references to modern politics and the divisions thereof. Would have been a better piece if she stuck more to her points of analyzing "The Age of Rudeness"
For me it seems to be a bit tacked on. Rundness is a timeless human thing, brexit is in this context just a contemporary local buzzword with relevance limited in scope and time.
Yup. It seems every article I read in 2017 has some forced refrence to Brexit, Trump, or Protests. While my views on those things are not strong, seeing them interrupts my stream of thought when attached to something unrelated. Then I am forced to wonder what views the author is projecting by the inclusion. What was I reading again? Annoying af.
I dislike IKEA furniture - It never seems to go well, and always in a different, hard-to-plan-for kind of way. Either the bed frame slats will crack at an odd place, or the bookshelf will bend under the weight of too many books, or perhaps a layer of plastic-ish(?) faux-wood will peel off revealing the flimsy glue pressed wood-ish material inside.
I understand the appeal of well designed, flatpacked, self assembled furniture - but why does the quality have to be so terrible? Is it so they can produce and sell at volume? It would be nice to see an intersection of medium/high quality end furniture that I can buy and assemble like IKEA products.
I have had exactly the opposite experience as yours. You describe every flat pack furniture brand except Ikea.
The only thing Ikea doesn't do superbly (for the price) is padded furniture. Their chairs and couches are terrible, in my opinion. Their cabinets, though? Their desks? Great look, and reliable for years. I am proud of my Billy bookshelf and the books on it in the living room.
I think you're both a little bit correct. Ikea probably sells the best quality flat-pack furniture out there, but I think it's pretty fair to expect their stuff to fail in some way within 5 years of normal use. Keep in mind the failure may or may not be catastrophic, and the item may still be usable for some time. They're definitely a good value, but only if you're OK with eventually needing to buy replacements.
Some personal anecdotes:
Lack coffee tables: utter trash, fell apart quickly (in a way reminiscent of what the grandparent post described)
Galant desk: still going strong after 12 years and 3 moves.
Aneboda dresser(s): Got three, 100% track failure after a few years and no longer suitable for daily use.
Billy bookcase: re-shelving books pushed the backing loose, and the thing looked like the Leaning Tower of Pisa until emergency repairs were undertaken. Will be junked in the next move.
Six years ago I bought one of those longer Lacks for ~15EUR and heavily use it close to every day. The black top varnish seems to get pretty thin at the most used locations which is the only wear marks I can spot.
I use it for eating, writing, etc. Maybe others have other plans to use a coffee table in a way that requires tougher structures.
I think lateral stresses (from people's feet, etc) did mine in. The seams failed, and things quickly deteriorated after that. A lot of Ikea stuff is designed with zero redundancy or design margin, so if any part fails or weakens the whole structure is compromised.
From what I saw, they're made out of a tiny amount of laminated cardboard. I personally wouldn't trust it, but maybe it would work if all lateral stress was avoided.
I consider the Lack tables to have a functional service life of two years - if its lightly used, much longer - but under daily use, just buy a new one every two years - even with that - after 10 years, money wise I'm still ahead of more durable furniture.
Are there other flat pack furniture brands? I did not know this. I had all IKEA up until I started replacing IKEA with already-built pieces from garage sales/ furniture stores/ family.
Maybe I have just gotten unlucky, and fallen in the tail end of their defects.
Sauder is the only other one I know of. Their stuff seems to be pretty well designed and of good quality, though I wish they were more unapologetic about being fiberboard, as I'm not a huge fan of fake wood textures.
As a counter point, ikea furniture works well enough for most loads but I have a chest of drawers and the bottom of the drawers is made from something similar to a less stiff version of masonite. for clothes it would be fine but for anything else the bottom of the drawers bends and scrapes the next drawer when opening. I need to retrofit the bottom to something worthwhile.
I've also never encountered those issues mentioned with Ikea furniture and have had them with others. I'm not sure if they were technically "flat-pack," but many years prior to seeing or knowing what an Ikea is, I've assembled things like computer desks and TV stands. They all had the issues described: lament peels off, too flimsy.
There are (from searching) several supplies of cheap, flatpack furniture for landlords, which probably explains why half the properties I rented as a student had the same furniture, made of 5mm thick hardboard and bits of plastic. That stuff didn't even hold together properly when it was new, let alone a couple of years old.
Habitat should be decent quality. MFI used to be a major retailer of flat-pack stuff, but they went bankrupt in 2015. My parents bought almost everything for the kids' rooms from MFI. None of it is broken, 15-25 years later.
That wardrobe's not really a flatpack, though. Last time I looked, Argos's flatpacks were similarly priced to IKEA's, though I haven't really looked in a while.
I love IKEA furniture for their hackability -- I built pretty much all of my furniture out of Kallax bookshelves reconfigured in various ways. I also store about 95% of my possessions in Kallax baskets and drawers so it's super-easy to move to a new apartment. If I move to a new city I can sell the shelves, ship the baskets with the stuff in them (put into cubic cardboard boxes), and buy new IKEA shelves at the destination because there will be an IKEA there.
I had to reinforce the baskets though because they were falling apart :-/
There's a lot of quality variability within IKEAs range as well. They have a bookcase line cheaper than Billy and you can tell it's there just so they can advertise something at a particular price point - I wouldn't want to own one. They have have a more expensive line made out of solid wood that is really good quality for not too much more.
I find that you can get a good feel for the quality of the stuff at the showrooms, since they get so manhandled by customers
As a designer friend puts it, IKEA is all in the edit. You can get some good stuff there, but you have to be careful about the design, the surfaces, and the finish of the materials. And you can't have too high a concentration of IKEA stuff in a room, or it looks too bland.
My library lives in 10 IKEA plywood bookcase units, about 20 linear meters of shelves, that is a really excellent piece. Simple design, all in birch plywood, and just the right strength (enhanced by using wood glue during assembly). It's been in use for 15 years now and still looks great.
These blanket statements are silly. How can you dislike all IKEA furniture when you probably haven't even used 99.9% of it? I have an IKEA Galant desk and it's been the best desk I've ever owned. I've also had it for over 10 years and it still looks as good as the day I bought it.
Bed - it was 200 or 300, lasted 10+ years. Veneer peeled off in 2 places (scraped it like crazy moving it 2x inc. up/down stairs, stored it for a year). Sold it in the end, crazy.
"Cubes" Bookcase - had it for 6+ years, moving it 1x was enough to make it too wobbly for us but still were able to sell it. Tip: leave 1-2 cubes empty and arrange books by color, looks awesome.
Med + small coffee tables - total garbage, putting your feet up on them like once is enough to make it way too wobbly. Small one is fine for a side table.
Malm dressers - had these 8+ years and still use them. Got a skinny tall one and a wide short one because I thought they matched the vibe of Hotel Nikko in SF.
Wood countertops - amazing and amazingly cheap compared to any other countertop options we found (by a big margin).
I think the MALM drawers are just as iconic - I've had so many of them as I've moved around different homes (and subsequently donated to charity when I didn't have space). They're probably made of the same crap substrate and laminate as everything else, but they're quite heavy and feel substantial.
the confusingly named "Norden occasional table" (it's a sideboard, people!) is apparently discontinued, and I can't think why. in terms of quality and sheer utility at a low price it tops pretty much any piece of storage oriented furniture I've ever bought. completely transformed my kitchen, looks good, and has held up well.
If you stick to the items they sell made out of actual wood instead of particle board it's a good value and as durable as anything. Where it gets shoddy is the accessories and furniture made out of particle board / MDF etc. You have to be good at spotting the the real wood though because they use a lot of faux wood veneers over particle board that are hard to spot if you aren't looking closely.
IKEA furniture is often bought with the understanding that it's relatively disposable. There's a lot of demand for that in cities where people move around more often.
Campaign living can't even deliver on a chair I ordered in November - I doubt they will even capture a significant portion of the market they originally set out to cut into.
I don't like any compressed wood (engineered wood) furniture, it's got too many fillers and (toxic) adhesives and they don't have the same rigidity of solid wood.
Make sure the back is positioned correctly (seated within the recess, and with all corners at right angles), and use twice the number of nails Ikea suggests. This will help maintain rigidity during a move.
Heh, I did that with a 5x5 Billy^W Expedit bookcase in a basement suite... And discovered, when moving out, that it would not fit up the stairs assembled. Hope the next tenant liked it!
> I understand the appeal of well designed, flatpacked, self assembled furniture - but why does the quality have to be so terrible?
Ikea stuff doesn't sell because it's flatpacked and self-assembled. It sells because it's really cheap. Flatpacking and self-assembly are different ways of cutting down on costs.
It is allows malicious code to scan ports. It allows easy building of difficult to manage tunnels (never mind corkscrew and port 443 SSH servers breaking out of 90% of corp networks I have been on via their HTTP/S proxy)
Port scanning itself is obviously not dangerous, however I believe the author is imagining a situation where a user on the other side of a corporate firewall views a webpage which then portscans from the inside then sends the results home/starts an attack on specific ports.
edit: To answer your direct question, port scanning is probably not /that/ dangerous. It is just information gathering. You almost always need to take steps after that. But if you can build a port scan you can build any other protocol up via this scheme (possibly even just proxy other UDP tools directly) and attack internal UDP services. It just seems like a glaring network hole considering how most corp LANs are set up.
This would take a few pieces, but port scanning is pretty feasible considering I have already done it more painfully using XSS exploitation frameworks to demonstrate XSS risks for customers before.
1.) You need some javascript running in a browser on the corporate network all set up for the corporate proxy to get out to "the internet". This browser would be on a machine on the internal LAN.
2.) UDP access enabled in JavaScript somehow.
3.) A user wanting to purposefully tunnel traffic would then set up a local UDP listener and build a proxy that would communicate with the JS using UDP. You would then need an HTTPS end point "on the internet" that would make your legitimate requests. You can do long lived streaming connections. The machinery isn't that important.
4.) That is it. [Special HTTP Proxy]<--->[Corp HTTP Proxy]<--->[Browser]<--->[UDP Proxy]<--->[Your apps that want to escape]
5.) You would of course reuse existing protocols and there are a ton of ways to flow all of this at each step. But it is just one more hole.
Side note: You can perform sort of crude TCP port scanning already with a meaty enough XSS exploit. An unfettered UDP connection would let you do UDP scanning to an internal LAN then as well.
Anyway this whole scenario is really complex, it would be much easier to just use Corkscrew and the existing corporate HTTPS proxy, because you need to invent a browser to UDP proxy scheme and a browser to "your HTTP proxy" scheme that can ultimately do generic UDP/TCP requests traffic. But your system listening on HTTP and or HTTP/S on the Internet would get requests and make the actual generic UDP/TCP connections for you. Honestly this whole scheme sounds complex and annoying and there are already other schemes like proxying TCP via DNS that are more accessible for exfiltrating data :)
The general point is code in a browser is inherently "permitted" and easy to get going on an internal corporate network. The more ways that code can reach out of its sandbox the larger the attack and defense surface you have as a corporate network trying to keep machines locked down and "under control".
Parasitic Companies want the ability to run anything they want, on anyone's machine, accessing all of the users personal data, as well as their competitors data if they can get at it, and use it for whatever reason they want, and have the ability to secure those revenue streams by erecting wholly artificial and socially destructive barriers to their removal, such as getting accepted to represent their interests in standards bodies then twisting the standards to do what they want. An example of this is EUI addresses in IPV6 with the Mac address as part of the IP address as a revenue stream maximization method for advertisers.
There was a you tube video awhile ago showing java-script able to run an operating system in a web browser as well as games inside the OS. Recently, Chrome added a task manager and user logins. Chrome is no longer a web browser, it's an operating system, and what enables an entire ecosystem of abuse is java-script.
In a few years hence, someone will figure out a technology that will disable java-script from running on client machines via firewall filter. It will break a lot of websites. Let it.
Each tab runs in its own thread, a page consumes CPU and RAM.
I'm not sure why it's a bad thing that a web browser has a task manager. Especially since one of the powerful things about the web is that no extra software is required for debugging / development.
It's totally possible today to create a filter that will scan for JS and remove it from sites with one of those man-in-the-middle corporate proxies.
But it'll break pretty much every site.
If you're talking about a company, that's as conductive to security as mandating weekly password changes requiring no repetition, symbols, lower + upper case and 15 characters.
Users will find ways around it. Like bringing unmanaged devices to browse the internet.
In terms of broken websites, corporate users don't have the influence as they did in years past.
Since we're trending towards pretty much every person in more economically developed countries having smart phones.
If a website doesn't work for a business's users I don't see how site owners will care.
On the development of web browsers becoming an OS of their own. Sure there's work to be done to improve security. For example, fingerprinting needs to be properly mitigated [1].
The web is open. Anyone can implement a web browser. Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge are trending towards writing one webpage/app and having it run everywhere.
Windows, OSX, Linux, Intel, ARM, Desktop/Laptop, Mobile/Tablet. Aren't a concern past display/formatting.
