Steps to reproduce the problem:
Steps to reproduce the problem:
(previous issue, for reference: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=513997)

The previous issue was (rudely) closed, so here we go again:

1. Thinking that displaying the entire first name in an environment where the length of the name impacts how much space is available for tabs is a bullshit Western Centric viewpoint. Many, if not most, regions around the world predominantly feature names that are, in Chrome terms 'two or three tabs'. That such an unthinking change could make its way to stable speaks volumes to the problems within Google.

2. If the primary purpose of a web browser is to render webpages, the new profile switcher is as close to being objectively worse as a UI design gets. The name takes space that a tab could and previously has taken. By using that space, it is harder to browse the internet; now a user has to open an extra window to fit a tab that previously fit in that space.

3. The switcher is less useful for the overwhelming majority of users for the profile switcher pre-dickbutton: developers. Profiles are represented by the first name of the signed in account (for a reason we will get into in a moment) which makes zero sense at all for a developer tool used by a single user. When a developer switches profiles, they are not changing their name.

4. The apparent intention of the new profile switcher is to allow more than one person to use the same OS-level user account but to have separation between the settings/history/such of the Web Browser. This is a horrific idea and enabling it is irresponsible. The Web Browser is not the only personal/private item on a single user account. If multiple people wish to use the same computer, every modern desktop operating system supports multiple user accounts. 

This contortion of the profiles concept attempts to replicate OS-level features without even the most basic level of security offered by the operating system. Chrome is unable to prevent access to locally stored files/installation or uninstallation of software/unauthorized changing of system account password/deletion of files/anything that takes place outside of the browser window.

Know your place: you are third party software. You play in the space defined by the operating system. You are not, no matter how much you want to be one, an operating system. Encouraging your massive user base to do irresponsible things is.......wait for it......irresponsible!

5. More than zero people are now using an old version of Chrome in response to the dickbutton being forced. Now you have people browsing the web with vulnerable software. When you are a user base of such size, you have a responsibility to the health and security of the web. Think back to what Microsoft did with Windows XP SP2; they built a detection system for non-genuine installations of Windows and opted not to use said system to block the installation of the Service Pack. Because the health of the internet is  aversely impacted by vulnerable software being exposed to it. Someone at Microsoft made the right choice. 

Chrome's auto updating system goes a long way to ensuring that known vulnerable versions are not run en masse, a la IE6. It is a good thing by almost every measurement. Or, rather, was.

When software automatically updates without explicitly asking for consent (or, for that matter, providing a user-exposed mechanism to disable it) there is an implied agreement that the purpose is to protect the user, not for anything else. 

Any and all non-security changes should require the user to consent prior to being enabled. Which, yes, is a ton of work. Everything old must be maintained. Such is the life of a responsible developer of software used by a billion people. The alternative is users disabling automatic updates and harming the web as a result.

6. The argument that maintaining the old switcher is an undue burden on the developers is false/an outright lie. Google Employee ‘’pkasting’' (real name omitted to protect the guilty) screwed up and revealed the real reason:

"Now that we've shipped the new avatar menu to stable, it would be good to remove these as soon as possible, not just because we have a policy about not preserving flags long-term, but because there are already many articles online advising users to toggle these flags, and if they remain for long people will come to rely on them and be utterly furious when they're removed.  (This bit us with the last NTP revision.)  Best to minimize the rage (it's already too late to eliminate it entirely)."

I can only wonder what unusual aerobics one must do to get their head so far up their own ass that they forget who they exist to serve. If ‘your policies’ do not benefit your users, your policies do not have a right to exist. Remember who you really work for.

I think that’s all I got. Shoutouts to Pkasting for admitting the real reasoning and posting a stupid as fuck ‘don’t make me sad’ reply on the last thread (https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=513997#c76 for those in need of a laugh). I couldn’t get past the part where they frame opening an issue as harassment, but maybe you can.

In the unlikely event that you (you being Google as a whole) do everything I asked in this email, here’s my wishlist:

Fire Justine Tunney 

Find some way to get handoff working from Chrome for Mac to Safari for iOS

Drill the undeniable fact that the web is not an app platform into the heads of everyone in the company. Actual drill optional, but it’s your call.

What is the expected behavior?
Google makes decisions to benefit the users

What went wrong?
Google makes decisions to benefit solely Google at the expense of the users/customers

Did this work before? Yes 2010?

Chrome version: 43.0.2357.134  Channel: n/a
OS Version: OS X 10.11.0
Flash Version: Shockwave Flash 18.0 r0

Sup Pkasting

What is the expected behavior?
Google doesn't do dumb shit

What went wrong?
So many things

Did this work before? Yes 2010?

Chrome version: 47.0.2526.111  Channel: stable
OS Version: OS X 10.11.2
Flash Version: Shockwave Flash 20.0 r0

Over 1 year later and yet this remains an issue. When are you people going to get it? What's going to happen first - Safari gets Tabs on Top and Favicons next to tabs or Google stops doing user-hostile bullshit? I honestly do not know.

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981700867736706160

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect failed for unknown reasons

Please contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: mac_pro_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : v8.runtimestats.browsing_desktop_classic
  Metric       : v8-gc-total_sum/browse_news/browse_news_flipboard


To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.flipboard v8.runtimestats.browsing_desktop_classic

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981700867736706160

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5275888238723072


| O O | Visit http://www.chromium.org/developers/speed-infra/perf-bug-faq
|  X  | for more information addressing perf regression bugs. For feedback,
| / \ | file a bug with component Speed>Bisection.  Thank you!

Started bisect job https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981697321895620656

=== BISECT JOB RESULTS ===
Bisect failed for unknown reasons

Please contact the team (see below) and report the error.


Bisect Details
  Configuration: mac_pro_perf_bisect
  Benchmark    : v8.runtimestats.browsing_desktop_classic
  Metric       : v8-gc-total_sum/browse_news/browse_news_flipboard


To Run This Test
  src/tools/perf/run_benchmark -v --browser=release --output-format=chartjson --upload-results --pageset-repeat=1 --also-run-disabled-tests --story-filter=browse.news.flipboard v8.runtimestats.browsing_desktop_classic

Debug Info
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/buildbucket_job_status/8981697321895620656

Is this bisect wrong?
  https://chromeperf.appspot.com/bad_bisect?try_job_id=5275888238723072


| O O | Visit http://www.chromium.org/developers/speed-infra/perf-bug-faq
|  X  | for more information addressing perf regression bugs. For feedback,
| / \ | file a bug with component Speed>Bisection.  Thank you!