Yes, it was (still is) an annoying Chromium bug that affects tons of browser automation projects, not just ArchiveBox.
But v0.9.x now has built-in chrome zombie killing at the start of every crawl, so it shouldnt happen anymore even if Chromium misbehaves! Definitely open a github issue if you see any performance issues at all!
It’s been a long time since our last major release back in 2024!
Thanks for hanging in there, but I promise this release was worth the wait!
In our last big announcement in 2024 we promised a plugin marketplace, P2P archiving by connecting servers together, and better UI / peformance. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41860909
I'm pleased to share that all those promises have now been delivered! Please let me know your feedback and open issues, I'm excited to hear how the community uses this release (especially because we have 0 analytics, comments are the only feedback we get).
I just upgraded from a relatively old version of archivebox (v0.7) and I am not a fan of the new UI. Is there a way I can switch back to the old layout. I found it a lot more intuitive and information dense.
EDIT: To be more specific with my feedback, in the new UI the 'FILES SAVED' column is not showing anything for all of the previous entries I'd made in v0.7. Can this be fixed? It's a huge setback and makes the v0.9 layout unusable.
Absolutely can definitely fix this relatively quickly, a few questions:
- did you do the full filesystem migration yet with `archivebox update --migrate-only`?
- what OS and screen size are you viewing on? and are you looking at the admin snapshot list or the public snapshot list?
- is it just the compactness of the old emoji icons on one line you preferred? or something more than that? the reason we changed it is because we have 20+ more icons now, so it no longer fits on one line easily and we cant easily represent every plugin with only common emoji
If you're able to share one of your old snapshot folders in a new Github issue that would be super helpful as then I can reproduce what you're seeing quickly.
> - did you do the full filesystem migration yet with `archivebox update --migrate-only`?
Ok I was missing this step. I did a migration with the command you shared and I now see the icons.
But while I can see the icons, I can't access the relevant files, the links are broken. As an example, the singlepage icon leads me to a path that is correct except for the .html in the URI.
> - is it just the compactness of the old emoji icons on one line you preferred? or something more than that? the reason we changed it is because we have 20+ more icons now, so it no longer fits on one line easily and we cant easily represent every plugin with only common emoji
Yes, I still prefer the previous one-line rendering. It is more compact and less busy. For my own personal use-case, I don't care for majority of the archive options.
I understand that you had to switch to a different layout given you now have 20+ icons but if there's a way I can hack it to look like the old layout that would be great. Maybe a config setting that allows power users to specify what actually shows up.
> - what OS and screen size are you viewing on? and are you looking at the admin snapshot list or the public snapshot list?
Ubuntu 24 and 1080p screen
If there is no easy fix for the broken links let me know. I'm more than happy to continue this conversation on a github ticket.
Thanks for the release! I'm a big fan of archivebox to combat link rot for documents I frequently reference, and this update looks HUGE! Very excited to try out the new features :)
also tricks to make it easy to convert a root FS to ZFS now that Ubuntu Server 24.04 added native root-on-zfs support: https://github.com/pirate/zfsify
For those into deriving the laws of physics from pure math and game-of-life style iteration of simple rules, checkout the Wolfram Physics Project: https://www.wolframphysics.org/
I read up on it, and it's not clear to me that it's actual dumping.
As in "selling below the cost of production".
I would say that China is trying to steer the car makers away from competing locally, as it's going to result in a price war. But that's not quite dumping per se.
That is (factually) a giant overstatement, and ignores domestic US politics.
It's almost like you believe the US remains interested in promoting free trade.
If it did, it wouldn't be levying illegal and constantly changing import tariffs, in violation of international trade agreements that it has signed up to.
I'm waiting for one of these "no you're wrong" comments to explain why it is that I'm wrong. I get that I didn't provide evidence either, but I'm relating the conventional wisdom on BYD-type cars. The C.W. is often wrong! But, like, you have to say why.
"Dumping" is a term of art in international trade.
It's the thing that happens when a foreign exporter sells goods in your country below their production cost (or far below what they're charging domestic customers). It's done to fuck up the foreign markets for those goods, or, in China's case, as a relief valve for malinvestment.
China drastically overfunds EV production. There's a whole weird story where provinces apparently competed to get slices of the EV production business, which resulted in a large number of competing firms, producing far more vehicles than the Chinese domestic market could consume.
This isn't just a US thing. Europe tariffs the heck out of these cars.
Right - your comment was very poorly articulated - and loaded with supposition.
Your claim is that the reason people cannot buy the vehicles ISN'T because they are being dumped BUT because the government SAYS they are being dumped and has therefore actively prevented them from being sold.
The supposition is that it's an accurate claim by the governments - there are reports that the Chinese manufacturers are being restricted by their government and that there has been a period of over production, but how much of that is true and how much is propaganda is very difficult to actually ascertain.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I don't think there's a serious dispute about whether China is dumping EVs, and the US isn't the only place claiming that.
I don't know how this is supposed to respond to what I just wrote. If an EU country restricted contracts or usage with Google or OpenAI, I wouldn't call them out for doing so. All I'm saying is that it's especially clear why Chinese EVs are impeded from selling in the US.
Interesting that they are “dumping” them in Australia and other countries at prices that are competitive but far above what they cost in China.
Below cost of production my ass.
The only Western car company even competing with them is Tesla, who people love to hate for ideological reasons.
Calling what Chinese companies are doing “dumping” is pure cope for the utter failures of Western companies.
Look at my post history, I’m not pro-China at all, but I am a realist and can see the evidence with my own eyes since we can actually get the vehicles here.
I give it 5 years for Western and Japanese companies to be decimated in this market. Can’t say they don’t deserve it.
I'll take a stab. How about something like not more than 50% greater than OECD average per industry? My point: It seems reasonable that some countries was to specialise in certain areas. For example: Taiwan and (East!) Germany chose to build-out their semiconductor industry starting in the 1980s. It has paid pretty good dividends with a healthy amount of industrial subsidies. I also think the OECD should be raising tariff rates to protect against ridiculous levels of Chinese subsidies.
Appeals to fairness are difficult to accept when the rest of us out here in the world have been hurt by the US imposing tariffs and sanctions on us over the past few decades, and with intense chaotic energy in the last few years.
How do we make a system everyone is to abide by when the US can just rewrite the rules when it suits? Order collapses when a huge country behaves this way.
Basically every "made in USA" consumer product has a DOD contract. The DOD is mandated by law to purchase from US companies, so there is a huge sector of small-to-medium businesses which only exist because there is a guaranteed order coming every quarter for uniforms or boots or other equipment that would likely be 1/3 the price if they were contract-manufactured in China or Vietnam.
Not saying this is uniformly bad, because without the law the number of businesses with the ability to manufacture this stuff would trend toward zero, but it is a form of subsidy.
I wonder if this pattern is true for all militaries in rich countries. I think it sounds like good economic policy. If you want to grow your military, then you need to make sure it is spent domestically. Also, the "finish good" may include lots of parts that were built overseas. Think about a Tomohawk missile: I am sure the microchips are all made overseas. That said, the intellectual property is developed domestically (or with very close allies) and final assembly is done domestically.
US Arms exports bring in around $13 billion a year. The military industrial complex is a domestic jobs program that sells the vast majority of what it makes domestically. The US is clearly not spending a trillion dollars a year subsidizing defense in order to make their products more competitive in other markets.
I'm not sure I agree. In the aircraft industry especially the US has strongly pushed for exports. Overseas programs (TRS2, Avro Arrow) were terminated for political reasons (and replaced with F111 etc). More recently see F35 impact.
That's before we discuss the advantage Boeing has in the commercial market thanks to DoD contracts.
Your link shows that the US exports the same as the next 20 countries added together. That suggests some market dominance.
I also suspect these numbers do not include "military aid" - where weapons and munitions are "given" by the US to Ukraine wherever[1]. (But they may, I don't know.)
I agree though that the primary benefit of this is not "sales". And even if it was these aren't consumer goods. So it's not easily compared to China's approach. I'm not suggesting it's a terribly good subsidy. But it's still a subsidy.
[1] there are a lot of political benefits to be gained by having bases in foreign countries, or by port visits by US ships. Unfortunately most of those benefits have been eroded in the last 2 years. The gutting of USAid (which saved basically nothing), leaving the WHO, the tarrif nonsense, bombing Iran - all have destroyed a benevolent reputation 75 years in the making.
Sure the US benefits by giving arms to Ukraine, or having bases in other countries.
But that has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is market dominance for some industry.
>Boeing DOD contracts
This is probably the closest comparison to what China is doing. But it’s still not the same thing because the US buys equipment from Boeing, they don’t just give them direct subsidies.
The equivalent would be if China awarded Bambu a contract to provide 3d printers to schools.
To the extent that the US pursues policies that help defense companies. They don’t do it in order to help those companies compete in foreign markets. They do it because they want those companies not to go out of business for national security reasons, or because they want those companies to provide domestic jobs.
The US does other shady things, but spending massive amounts to help domestic companies outcompete foreign companies in foreign markets isn’t one of them.
Oh I agree. The US is not doing the same thing as China at all.
China is spending its money developing manufacturing of goods the world wants. It has targeted markets and the govt is spending money in those markets. The markets they have chosen have huge economic and political value.
By contrast the US has chosen to spend its (govt) money on the military. Because, you know, national security.
The US is spending just as much money as China, but focused on different areas. Your complaint (if there is one) is that China chose different markets and didn't "play the game" (as the USSR did) and base their economy on flashy weapons.
Since the collapse of the USSR in 1990 its not clear to me why US spending on military continues to grow. It's not fear of attack; there is no threat to the US itself. It has to be a desire to project power and
influence.
And yet the very limitations of that goal have been exposed in 18 months. The dismantling of USAid (or more accurately the manner of the dismantling) has destroyed 75 years of goodwill. Coupled with punitive tarifs (which are paid for by US consumers) they make the US an unreliable trade partner.
Then the war in Iran showed the very real limitations of the military. To be fair they're currently being lead by incompetence, with no clear goals or strategies. But it reinforces the point that all that military money is wasted when even simple conflicts are lost. And it further drives home the limits of that power projection in unpopular conflicts. A lesson, it would seem, the US wishes to re-learn all the time.
China it seems has different ambitions, and a very different strategy. And I get why you might not like that, because maybe (just maybe) their strategy is the smarter one in the long run.
In terms of PPP, China spends about 60% of what the US does. And looking at the trend over the last 15 years, that number will overtake the US fairly soon.
> Since the collapse of the USSR in 1990 its not clear to me why US spending on military continues to grow. It's not fear of attack; there is no threat to the US itself. It has to be a desire to project power and influence.
The exact same thing is true for China. They can’t be afraid of attack. They have the 3rd largest nuclear arsenal and the 2nd or 3rd most powerful military in the world. Yet they keep growing their military.
> The dismantling of USAid (or more accurately the manner of the dismantling) has destroyed 75 years of goodwill. Coupled with punitive tarifs (which are paid for by US consumers) they make the US an unreliable trade partner.
We have an idiot in the White House. Even when I (very rarely) agree with him on things like tariffs are useful for preventing foreign state sponsored companies from wiping out important domestic industries, he implements them in the most inept way possible.
If a country hands out enormous subsidies but yet isn't leading in anything, then maybe it's time to consider what structural reasons are causing these subsidies to be squandered and whose bottom lines are being padded.
I heard that when some country wants to pay in a different currency than USD for oil, a coup suddenly happens, or a helicopter comes and the president gets kidnapped
It basically means most of the world's currency wealth is held in the USA or backed by the USA. So the answer would be the finance sector - it's subsidized by the rest of the world.
That’s a stretch for the topic at hand. You can say hey the US does this probably morally equivalent thing, but when people are talking about subsidizing domestic companies so they can outcompete foreign companies in foreign markets, this isn’t what they’re talking about.
Ever wondered why everything in the USA contains corn syrup? Because sugar is artificially expensive (roughly double the global price) due to import tariffs that protect US sugar cane farmers.
But v0.9.x now has built-in chrome zombie killing at the start of every crawl, so it shouldnt happen anymore even if Chromium misbehaves! Definitely open a github issue if you see any performance issues at all!
reply