https://altstore.io is the big one. You might want the AltStore fork SideStore (you can do the weekly reinstall without a computer, https://sidestore.io). Other tools exist, like https://sideloadly.io and https://appdb.to.

Currently, we're pretty limited on 5-character ab.xy domains, and they'll cost you over $1000 USD to register[1]. However, 6 and 7 character domains are available, and can indeed be really useful!

[1]: https://micro.domains

It looks like it's just the HN submitted title which is wrong (currently "Why the Original Macintosh Had a Screen Resolution of 512×324"). The article's title is "Why the Original Macintosh Had a Screen Resolution of 512×342", and "324" doesn't appear anywhere on the page.

Looks like someone is reading Hacker News comments and editing the page - archive.org captured the page probably mid-edit, and it says "324" in one place: https://web.archive.org/web/20250527202300/https://512pixels...

Oh that's priceless. Real time HN feedback loops.

Wouldn’t be the first time.

How would the OS know if the app that the browser is querying about is actually the current page? For all the OS knows, the user might be quickly visiting a ton of play.google.com pages for the top 1000 apps on the app store.

> How would the OS know if the app that the browser is querying about is actually the current page?

Maybe i’m missing something, but it sounds like it would be easy for google to support this functionality by letting developers configure this in their app “bundle”. A property that tells the OS “my app is related to domain example.com”. Make it an array of domains if you must.

> A property that tells the OS “my app is related to domain example.com”. Make it an array of domains if you must.

Elaborating on the sibling's comment: There is already such a property that apps must set in their manifests in order for them to be able to react to links/intents for domain-associated-with-the-app.com.

But it doesn't address the question of how a browser is supposed to be able to open links to domain-associated-with-the-app.com in that app, without Android revealing to the browser whether the app is installed or not. In short: The browser will, by construction, be able to determine which apps you've got installed or not.

I mean, do Windows or macOS tell the browser which mail apps you have installed when it handles a mail:// URI?

No, but web browsers do have the ability to ask the OS which application is associated with a certain url type.

But it doesn’t leak that information to web pages.

Intent filters can be for domains. It's how deeplinks work. But with querying being locked down you can't know what apps can handle a deeplink.

make it into a system dialog?

But God forbid users learn how to use their device. All of this could be prevented by having the users manually pick the application instead.

Those articles are paywalled:

https://archive.is/GWvCX https://archive.ph/ckFB2

Reproduced here on NVIDIA as well.

Llama 3.1 isn't under that license, it's under the Llama 3.1 Community License Agreement: https://www.llama.com/llama3_1/license/

I think they meant that you lose your windows after a reboot, because Firefox only restores one window, compared to all of your groups.

Firefox restores all windows.

If you close your windows in the wrong order, you will lose your tabs and pinned tabs.

Example: Have a primary window with you email, calendar and important sites pinned.

Then open another window and open a few tabs.

Then at the end of the day, close your primary window first, then discover you still have the secondary window open and close it as well.

When you restart Firefox you will get the secondary window and your "primary" window will be lost with all your pinned tabs.

I actually went down a rabbit hole of trying to log it as a bug, but the behavior is by design apparently.

Use Ctrl-Shift-Q so that all windows are closed at once.

You can reopen the window you're missing with ctrl+shift+n, the same way you open a formerly closed tab (only that's not n, that's t). I do agree it's irritating this isn't made more plain.

Theoretically, yes, they could, I think. However, with Certificate Transparency, the fraudulent certificates these Certificate Authorities could create would have to be published in CT logs to be valid, where they would be quickly noticed, and the CA would (hopefully) lose credibility and be removed from device's trusted CA list.