Serious question, I know insolence is a noun, but the thread title just doesn't sound right. Can anyone confirm if that is in fact grammatically correct?

I haven't seen that captcha in a long while. It probably only pops up when you try to log in from an unfamiliar address. And at the moment it seems reasonably good at blocking out most spambots.
Hey, question for you! I'm genuinely curious about this.

As a developer it is difficult for me to imagine any web site functioning without huge amounts of JavaScript. Any modern site I can think of uses some framework or another (React, Angular, Vue, etc.) and even those that do not, depend on JS for a ton of their functionality.

As a user who disables JavaScript, do you find the web to thoroughly broken to the point of being pretty much unusable most of the time? Do you end up having to create exceptions for the majority of the sites that you regularly visit? What's your overall experience like, and what are your thoughts on the fact that it's only gonna get more dependent on JS?

As a Web developer, I see any site unable to work without JavaScript as messy work from amateurs.
JavaScript should be used to enhance the user experience, but the site should still be usable without it.

All of the websites I use on a daily basis work well without JavaScript.

Are you serious? What stack do you work in? Can you post some examples of your work?

Unless one is working on a mom-and-pop-cookie-shop business card web site, how exactly could one possibly expect stuff to work? o_O For something like a banking site (Chase), or a video streaming site (Netflix), or a chat site (Slack), or an issue tracking site (Jira), or an email site (Gmail) — basically any site with modern functionality — you cannot get around some seriously involved and complex JS.

Edit:

So I went home and tried this. Disabled JS entirely and opened a few sites.

My bank loaded a placeholder demanding I turn on JS.
My other bank was stuck on a loading animation.
My credit card page loaded a placeholder demanding I turn on JS.
Netflix sort of loaded partially but nothing at all worked.
Slack loaded a placeholder demanding I turn on JS.
My brokerage and investments site didn't load at all.
Digital Ocean loaded but was comprehensively broken.
Steam loaded but was broken and demanded JS in order to sign in an make purchases.
GOG partially loaded but wouldn't allow me to add games to cart.
Asus was broken an unusable at all.
Twitter offered "legacy twitter" but it never actually loaded and had a mile of errors in the console.
LinkedIn was stuck on a loading animation.
CreditKarma allowed me to submit the login info but then went blank.

Gmail offered an HTML-only site, but holy shit that looked bad and lacked featured.
Reddit mostly worked, but a lot of features didn't.

Amazon worked and allowed me to browse and purchase.

At that point I was DONE. So yea... sorry, sir, unless you wrote Amazon, your "messy work from amateurs" statement is laughable at the very best.

I have some exceptions but only for sites I feel the most secure. Also I do not use any community websites (like facebook etc) as for me they are completely useless. For the rest - if some site does not work without 3rd party inclusions (like google stuff I mentioned) I mostly just do not use it - any important information on the internet is not "exclusive" and will fast spread around.

"Proper" answer: yes

Correct answer: no

realistic answer: It sounds wrong because it's a logic error, not a grammatical error.

Basically, "insolence" is a noun referring to the concept of rude and disrespectful behavior. It's normally used as a mass noun (because the concept it refers to is a mass concept), but the "proper rules" for mass nouns do not reflect actual english grammar, so it's not technically grammatically incorrect. It should be "The Google captcha is insolence," to be grammatically correct, but this also fails logic: it doesn't even fit the definition, as captcha is not a behavior.

Peeing on the floor is an (a type of) insolence.

Well, it would take long to explain but, in short, yes, it is good we have captcha protection on redeem.

The only thing I would change is let's use GOG's own one instead of 3rd party (Google).

I'd say the same thing, just as i've said about the installers, but have you looked at the site, lately? That said, most captchas would work against most AI.

EDIT: Right off the top of my head, you plot a star map of 10 random stars randomly placed. You have to name which star is a direction from another star. This would be converted to a png from an svg, then displayed to the user. The answer is memorized by gog for the duration of a session dedicated to that question.

I basically agree, although there are a few exceptions like multimedia sites (like Netflix or Twitch) or map services where JS is really needed.

However it's not always a question of "messy work from amateurs", but - as always - time and money. In an ideal world a website would have a script-less version (working with url-parameters and posts) and then a script-version on top with all the fancy animations, in-place rendering and ajax-calls in the back (this is also good for search robots).

In reality this effectively creates the double amount of coding and testing workload since you're basically creating the same page twice. And many customers aren't willing to pay for that. And so they stick with the "rich" version - because you gotta have that nowadays.

So I get why it is done this way.

What really pissed me off though is that everyone and their dog is referencing third-party scripts (google, fb...) all over the place. And every one of these inclusions sends a request with referrer and allows browser-fingerprinting. That way you can be tracked by the big providers all over the web.
C'mon people, how hard can it be to host jQuery on your own servers?

I use uBlock Origin in combination with uMatrix and it's really astounding how many sites load stuff from here or there which then in turn loads even more stuff from other sites. Sometimes it takes 6(!) "ok allow this and reload" rounds until you actually see anything. And that's just for scripts generating content - not even all the ad- and tracker networks.
I would complain. Bank sites should work without JS. XSS is still a thing.

"Using the Google CAPTCHA is (an) insolence"?

You could make that argument, but i would disagree with the content of the statement on the grounds that i don't find captchas rude.
I don't think you're meant to host it yourself, tbh. I do think it's wiser, however, assuming there isn't some include hidden in there somewhere, since if something new added to it breaks your code, or if something happens to google, your site is toast.

On the contrary. Self-hosting libraries is the correct way to go about it:

- No spying through referers, IP address and browser fingerprints
- No risk of 3rd-party server unavailable (if your own server is down - well...it's broken anyway)
- No risk of 3rd-party server poisoned (imagine Google got hacked and a malicious jQuery lib was placed there...woohoo)
- No risk of breaking changes (many simply include "-latest" instead of a specific version that is known to work with your code... stupid.
- No unblocking needed with many privacy addons...

There are of course a few cases (like Google fonts) where self-hosting is not allowed. We only use those if the customer explicitly want them and we couldn't talk them out of it.

Disable private browsing or log into your google account before logging in into GOG.

Reread, i'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying i think google intentionally doesn't want you self-hosting, despite all the benefits.