[insanitybit]

> Chrome's differentiator is that it's fast.

I don't think that's the whole story. Chrome aggressively marketed itself around its sandboxing and security at a time when browser drive bys were huge. Anyone I recommended Chrome to, I did so because of security, not performance.

> if 99.99% of users aren't going to use it,

Ideally the crate would get closer and closer to the performance required to enable it entirely. I just meant as a temporary state.

Also, I think more than .01% of users would enable it if there were a checkbox on install like "We can make your browser a tiny bit slower but potentially increase its security".

> it's probably not worth it to bloat the binary size either.

eh, there's so much in `chrome://flags` I don't think that they mind too much? idk