Monthly Archives: November 2021

Google Docs is an online word processor developed by the tech giant, Google, which lets its users create and edit text documents in the web browser without using any special software.

Users can use smart editing and styling tools provided by Google Docs to format texts and paragraphs. However, a Google Docs document can also be easily downloaded for offline use.

Interestingly, the 'Make available offline feature in Google Docs lets users edit a Google Document even without an internet connection (offline editing). However, the changes made are reflected in the document once the internet connection is restored.

Step 1: Install Google Docs offline extension on your device using Google Chrome Browser. For this, select the Add to Chrome option and then choose Add Extension.

Step 2: After installation, navigate to Google Drive to enable offline mode.

Step 3: In Google Drive, select the Settings icon given in the upper right corner of your screen.

Step 4: Scroll down to find the Offline option. Then, tick the check box given next to the option Create, open and edit your recent Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides on this device while offline.

Step 5: Lastly, select the Done option given in the top right corner of the screen.

Once youve enabled the offline mode, the next step is to choose specific Google Docs that you want offline for editing.

Step 1: To enable offline mode for editing a specific document, head to the main page of Google Drive.

Step 2: Then, find the Google doc that you wish to view or edit offline.

Step 3: If on desktop, right-click on the document. Then, from the given options, right slide the toggle bar given next to the option Available offline.

Step 4: On the mobile app, youll need to tap the three dots given next to the document name. Then, select the option Make available offline.

Once completed, you'll be able to easily access the selected documents for editing. Interestingly, you can view and edit your document in the same way you would online.

READ MORE| Want to recover unsaved data on Microsoft Word? Check here

READ MORE| Looking for ways to add checkboxes in Google Docs to create interactive to-do lists? Know how

READ MORE| Want to type in Hindi and other regional languages in Google Docs using voice? Here's a guide

Read more:

Want to use and edit Google Docs without an internet connection? Here's how you can do it - India Today

Google will call YouTuber FriendlyJordies as a witness in a defamation case brought by John Barilaro, in a move the former NSW deputy premier's lawyer sayswill "no doubt aggravate the damage".

Mr Barilaro is suing in the Federal Court over the publication of a series of videos last year.

He has discontinued the case against Jordan Shanks, aka FriendlyJordies, after the satirist's barrister read out an apology in court earlier this month, accepting some of the videos were offensive to the politician.

Portions of the sketches that attracted defamation allegations were edited out, but the case against Google continues.

Barrister Lyndelle Barnett, for Google, today told Justice Steven Rares the tech giant would call Mr Shanks, but would not be adducing all evidence it had previously planned.

The confirmation came as Mr Barilaro's barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, pressed Google on Mr Shanks's potential appearance after it "reserved the right" to call him.

She said it would be "some work" to cross-examine the satirist if he was called and suggested the tech giant would "no doubt aggravate the damage to my client by doing so".

Ms Chrysanthou also accused Google of creating unnecessary "busy work" by seeking special orders, beyond the usual undertakings given by litigants, to protect confidentiality on parts of documents Google was asked to produce.

They were "apparently to protect people's email addresses", Ms Chrysanthou told the court.

"These are not state secrets," she said.

"The notion that a person is allowed to either redact documents or prohibit access for something in the nature my friend describes is, with respect to her, absurd."

Ms Barnett insisted Google was not arguing the documents should not be made available, but merely to "engage" with their opposition and seek recognition of "sensitivity" in some of the material.

Justice Rares questioned what could justify a confidentiality order, describing the request as "ridiculous" and "puerile".

"This is just storms in teacups that are unnecessary," the judge said.

Google also suggested Mr Barilaro gave "implied consent" for the edited videos to be published.

But the judge said the securing of a deal to remove parts of the video that gave rise to imputations did not mean Mr Barilaro consented to the rest of the videos being published.

Ms Chrysanthou described the consent argument as a "false issue".

"We're not happy that Google continues to publish videos that contain racist remarks, like 'greaseball Ned Kelly', but again that's just a question of hurt," she said.

The trial has been set down for 10 daysin March.

The rest is here:

Google will call YouTube comedian FriendlyJordies as witness in John Barilaro defamation case - ABC News

When Google introduced Manifest V3 in 2019, web extension developers were alarmed at the amount of functionality that would be taken away for features they provide users. Especially features like blocking trackers and providing secure connections. This new iteration of Google Chromes web extensions interface still has flaws that might be addressed through thoughtful consensus of the web extension developer community. However, two years and counting of discussion and conflict around Manifest V3 have ultimately exposed the problematic power Google holds over how millions of people experience the web. With the more recent announcement of the official transition to Manifest V3 and the deprecation of Manifest V2 in 2023, many privacy based web extensions will be mitigated in how they are able to protect users.

The security and privacy claims that Google has made about web extensions may or may not be addressed with Manifest V3. But the fact remains that the extensions that users have relied on for privacy will be heavily stunted if the current proposal moves forward. A move that was presented as user-focused, actually takes away the users power to block unwanted tracking for their security and privacy needs.

Large Influence, Little Challenge

First, a short history lesson. In 2015, Mozilla announced its move to adopt the webRequest API, already used by Chrome, in an effort to synchronize the landscape for web extension developers. Fast forwarding to the Manifest V3 announcement in 2019, Google put Mozilla in the position of choosing to split or sync with their Firefox browser. Splitting would mean taking a strong stand against Manifest V3 as an alternative and supporting web extensions developers innovation in user privacy controls. Syncing would mean going along with Googles plan for the sake of not splitting up web extension development any further.

Mozilla has decided to support Manifest V2s blocking webRequest API and MV3s declarativeNetRequest API for now. A move that is very much shaped by Googles push to make MV3 the standard, supporting both APIs is only half the battle. MV3 dictates an ecosystem change that limits MV2 extensions and would likely force MV2 based extensions to conform to MV3 in the near future. Mozillas acknowledgement that MV3 doesnt meet web extension developers needs shows that MV3 is not yet ready for prime time. Yet, there is pressure to get stable, trusted extensions to allocate resources to port their extensions to more limited versions of themselves with a less stable API.

Manifest V3 Technical Issues

Even though strides have been made in browser security and privacy, web extensions like Privacy Badger, NoScript, and uBlock Origin have filled the gap of providing the granular control users want. One of the most significant changes outlined in Manifest V3 is the removal of blocking webRequest API and the flexibility it gave developers to programmatically handle network requests on behalf of the user. Queued to replace blocking webRequest API, the declarativeNetRequest API includes low caps on how many sites these extensions could cover. Another mandate is moving from Background Pages, a context that allows web extension developers to properly assess and debug, to an alternative, less powerful context called Background Service Workers. This context wasnt originally built with web extension development in mind, which has led to its own conversation in many forums.

In short, Service Workers were meant for a sleep/wake cycle of web asset-to-user deliveryfor example, caching consistent images and information so the user wont need to use a lot of resources when reconnecting to that website again with a limited connection. Web extensions need persistent communication between the extension and the browser, often based on user interaction, like being able to detect and block ad trackers as they load onto the web page in real time. This has resulted in a significant list of issues that will have to be addressed to cover many valid use cases. These discussions, however, are happening as web extension developers are being asked to port to MV3 in the next year without a stable workflow available with pending issues such as no defined service worker context for web extensions, pending WebAssembly support, and lack of consistent and direct support from the Chrome extensions team itself.

Privacy SandStorm

Since the announcement of Manifest V3, Google has announced several controversial Privacy Sandbox proposals for privacy mechanisms for Chrome. The highest-stakes discussions about these proposals are in the World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C. While technically anyone can listen into the open meetings, only W3C members can propose formal documentation on specifications and have leadership positions. Being a member has its own overhead of fees and time commitment. This is something a large multinational corporation can easily overcome, but it can be a barrier to user-focused groups. Unless these power dynamics are directly addressed, a participants voice gets louder with market share.

Recently this year, after the many Google forum-based discussions around Manifest V3, a WebExtensions Community Group has been formed in the W3C. Community group participation does not require W3C membership, but they do not produce standards. Chaired by employees from Google and Apple, this group states that by specifying the APIs, functionality, and permissions of WebExtensions, we can make it even easier for extension developers to enhance end user experience, while moving them towards APIs that improve performance and prevent abuse.

But this move for greater democracy would have been more powerful and effective before Googles unilateral push to impose Manifest V3. This story is disappointingly similar to what occurred with Googles AMP technology: more democratic discussions and open governance were offered only after AMP had become ubiquitous.

With the planned deprecation of Manifest V2 extensions, the decision has already been made. The rest of the web extensions community are forced to comply, deviate from, or leave a large browser extension ecosystem that doesnt include Chrome. And thats harder than it may sound: Chromium, the open-source browser engine based on Chrome, is the basis for Microsoft Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, and Brave. Statements have been made by Vivaldi, Brave, and Opera on MV3 and their plans to preserve ad-blockers and privacy preserving features of MV2, yet the ripple effects are clear when Chrome makes a major change.

What Does A Better MV3 Look Like?

Some very valid concerns and asks have been raised with the W3C Web Extensions Community Group that would help to propel the web extensions realm back to a better place.

Even though one may see the moves between web extensions API changes and privacy mechanism proposals as two separate endeavors, it speaks to the expansive power of how one company can impact the ecosystem of the web; both when they do great things, and when they make bad decisions. The question that must be asked is who has the burden of enforcing what is fair: the standards organizations that engage with large company proposals or the companies themselves? Secondly, who has the most power if one constituency says no and another says yes? Community partners, advocates, and smaller companies are permitted to say no and not work with companies who enter the room frequently with worrying proposals, but then that company can claim that silence means consensus when they decide to go forward with a plan. Similar dynamics have occurred before when the W3C grappled with Do Not Track (DNT) where proponents of weaker privacy mechanisms feigned concern over user privacy and choice. So in this case, large companies like Google can make nefarious or widely useful decisions without much incentive to say no to themselves. In the case of MV3, they gave room and time to discuss issues with the web extensions community. That is the bare minimum standard for making such a big change, so to congratulate a powerful entity for making space for many other voices would only add to the sentiment that this should be the norm in open web politics.

No matter how well meaning a proposal can be, the reality is millions of peoples experiences on the internet are often left up to the ethics of a few in companies and standards organizations.

Read more from the original source:

Manifest V3: Open Web Politics in Sheep's Clothing - EFF

American Vandal is a hilarious true crime parody. Well worth watching.

Don't want to ruin the finale of Netflix's 2017 sleeper hit, American Vandal? Then don't Google "who did the dicks".

But if you can't imagine a world in which you would submit that search query, you clearly haven't had the pleasure of making the mocu-series' acquaintance. In my experience, not enough people have and that's a shame.

It could be the show's prickly premise -- American Vandal's unofficial log line is "Serial, but with dick jokes." Maybe most people, myself excluded, won't say, "You had me at dick jokes." But here's where I adopt the whiny voice befitting someone who enjoys toilet humor as much as I do: You just have to tryyyyyy it. Truuuuust me!

If you enjoy either Serial or dick jokes, though, I can almost guarantee you'll love American Vandal, created by Dan Perrault and Tony Yacenda of CollegeHumor. And if you're lucky enough to enjoy both (and, honestly, who among us... ?), this canceled-before-its-time mystery series deserves a prominent spot on your Netflix "My List."

Read more: The best Netflix documentaries to watch this weekend

The crime at the center of American Vandal is an act of vandalism that's NSFW.

Set in the not-quite-historical year of our Lord 2015, American Vandal is an incisive, deadpan send-up of the true-crime genre, which experienced a remarkable renaissance in the same pop cultural epoch. In 2014, we had the podcast Serial, of course, and then HBO and Netflix delivered The Jinx and Making a Murderer, respectively, in short order. (Cult classic The Staircase was also dredged from the depths of 2004 with new episodes around this time, to meet the audience's insatiable demand for the examination and narrativization of evidentiary minutiae.)

But American Vandal sets itself apart from the true-crime milieu by being... not true. Hulu has since gotten in on this fictional-true-crime beat with Only Murders in the Building, a comedy starring Selena Gomez that joins a growing tradition of mockumentaries, parodies, satires and spoofs of the genre, which American Vandal pioneered. So if you've binged Only Murders and haven't yet seen American Vandal, you've got some catching up to do.

Read more: 2021 best new TV shows to watch, stream, obsess about

The scene of the crime in American Vandal.

Set in a nondescript West Coast high school, American Vandal is, in the world of the show, filmed by sophomore Peter Maldonado (Tyler Alvarez), an aspiring documentary filmmaker, and Sam Ecklund (Griffin Gluck), his best friend. Their school, Hanover High, is reeling from a heinous crime: Someone has spray-painted dicks on 27 cars in the teachers' parking lot, and the teachers demand justice. A witness to the crime, the sweaty-foreheaded Alex Trimboli, points a finger at Dylan Maxwell (Jimmy Tatro), the school's resident burnout. And everyone's pretty content to place the blame on Dylan. Everyone, that is, except Peter and Sam.

Jimmy Tatro as Dylan in American Vandal.

Dylan has a good motive, a bad alibi, and a well-documented propensity for dick doodles. But with a little digging, it becomes clear that not everything adds up. For one thing, Alex Trimboli is a notorious liar. (Did he really get a hand job from the hottest girl in school, or did she merely text him "heyy" with two Ys?) And another: There was no ball hair included in the spray painted graffiti. Dylan's dick pics always include ball hair.

The series is populated by the kind of hyperparticular archetypes not seen since the sexually active band geeks of Mean Girls. Social media use at Hanover High is unrelenting, but the show brooks no hand-wringing over screen time. In fact, the majority of the clues added to Peter and Sam's string-crossed corkboard come from the digital detritus of Snapchat, Twitch, Instagram and text messages, and the audience comes to appreciate the implausible surfeit of saved Snaps taken the night of "Nana's party."

"Who did the dicks?" becomes American Vandal's "Who shot JR?" (And it's always "dicks," never penises, schlongs or even ding-a-lings.) In the show's second season, the central question morphs into, "Who is the Turd Burglar?" and its pursuit of justice is as childishly funny as season one's. The only difference is that by season two you're no longer surprised at how funny it can be when such lowbrow subject matter is given the highbrow treatment. It's funny because it's stupid.

What I love most about American Vandal is its ability to evolve. It would be easy enough for some studio exec or Big Data bot to come up with the "Serial meets dick jokes" premise and assume the scripts will just write themselves. But my hunch is that even the most talented yarn-spinners can't carry an eight-episode arc on the backs of dicks alone. Instead American Vandal is a Trojan (tee-hee) horse, luring you in with dick-jokes candy, then serving up a wholesome, plant-based indictment of our lurid interest in the real crimes that traumatize real people.

Before the show reaches its polemic finale, though, it indulges the very whims it eventually eviscerates, by which I mean it becomes a genuinely engrossing mystery show. So maybe you don't like toilet humor, but you must like the idea of having your cake and eating it too. In its way, American Vandal is like a nicotine patch, delivering a safe dosage of your craving to mitigate future harm. It's all the indulgence of the true-crime experience without the guilt of treating someone's death like must-see TV. Plus, it's funny.

American Vandal's truly compelling central mystery hits all the right true-crime beats: alibis examined and lied about; red herrings; CGI reproductions of alleged dockside hand jobs; a dick-drawing time-test to see if Alex Trimboli's purported timeline is even feasible. Season one even has its own Nisha call -- The Kiefer Sutherland voice mail -- and there's a thriving second-screen experience waiting for you on Reddit and in spoiler-laden theory roundups if you're the rabbit-hole type.

Unfortunately, it seems American Vandal season three may be a hopeless dream at this point. Though initial headlines around Netflix's ouster seemed promising ("'American Vandal' Canceled at Netflix, Will Be Shopped Elsewhere," for instance), Perrault and Yacenda have since pivoted their raillery toward the world of esports, with a forthcoming Paramount Plus mockumentary called Players. But maybe, just maybe, if enough people take my advice and give the show a chance, the streaming gods will reward us with another season.

Who did the dicks, indeed. Give the show 15 minutes, and you'll have to know, too.

See the original post here:

Why you need to watch the strangest 'true crime' show on Netflix - CNET