361–370 of 376 posts
I wrote a simple bit of code to calculate the size of index pages with includes (js, css, images) and here's what I get: page resource total url (b) (b) (Kb) ---------------------------------------------- 33857 143 34.0 news.ycombinator.com 62690 55975 118.7 arstechnica.com 11844 223862 235.7 seldomlogical.com 218837 765943 984.8 newyorktimes.com l592771 545304 1138.1 guardian.co.uk The one thing I notice watching th…
I didn't see the correct answer yet, so I'll just tell you, tabs have a delay to create because in almost all modern browsers you have to wait for a process to be created and for everything to be paged in, _then_ wait for a bunch of IPC calls to complete. Old browsers didn't do this, so creating tabs was so fast! But they were also much easier to compromise. Tradeoffs. Source: Electron maintainer
If paging in is the problem then you need more memory (or fewer processes consuming your memory) or a fast SSD so that paging isn't slow. If you don't have a fast SSD then you should try to always have a few GB of RAM available, otherwise your system can't cache frequently needed resources and everything will be slow.
Creating a new tab in Chrome is very fast for me, even on my six-year-old laptop. I can type Ctrl+T and instantly be typing a new URL/search-term.
There are hundreds of things that can make tab creation slow - anti-virus, low-memory, malware, extensions, CPU contention, etc. It is likely that different people on this thread are having their browser experience slowed by different things. Only by monitoring your specific system, or performing experiments (try disabling all extensions) can you find out why browsing is slow for you.
In some cases the slowdowns could be bugs in the browsers which happen to only affect some people, but in most cases I think it is external factors.
chrome://tracing can be used to investigate slowdowns in Chrome. ETW tracing (see UIforETW) can be used to investigate slowdowns on any Windows machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we stop the "sellout" business? Having a clearly stated and one-click reversible whitelist is neither dishonest nor bad for the user. I like having the option to support sites I enjoy without massively inconveniencing myself. You prefer maximum adblocking, and that's fine, but there's nothing at all wrong with giving us both the choice.
> Can we stop the "sellout" business? Having a clearly stated and one-click reversible whitelist is neither dishonest nor bad for the user. It is dishonest and bad for the general public. Users expect their adblocker to block adds; not block 'some' adds because of Mafia practices, or corruption (ie. advertising companies paying large, inappropriate sums of money to the company behind ABP in order to be whitelisted by…
You still seem to be under the impression that ABP is deceptive. It's not. It explains the "acceptable ads" list and gives you the option to disable it first thing after install. It is not doing anything without the user's knowledge. They're providing a perfectly honest service that you aren't interested in, and you think they should feel bad for that.
> You can still do this on a case-by-case scenario with uBlock Origin.
I specifically said without inconveniencing myself. Building up custom adblock settings for various sites is a chore and I have better things to do with my time. I choose to use a product that takes care of that chore for me, for the most part. You choose to take the time to personalize things, and that's fine; I've done the same in other circumstances. But that's a personal choice, not a moral one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is exactly how I'm using Firefox, right now -- 273 tabs open. It's sitting at ~5% of CPU and 450MB of RAM. And switching tabs is instantaneous. Which platform are you on? Which Firefox version? Stock or tweaked? Any special add-ons? I use Firefox on OS X and it crawls after 10-15 tabs. Consumes many gigs of memory. Chrome isn't any better. It just splits the memory consumption among multiple processes. I don't…
400 tabs. Including several active fancy SPAs, like gMail and two copies of Slack, a gDocs or two, sometimes the godawful work LMS. Stock Firefox 50 (32bit), untweaked with no relevant add-ons (well, except AdBlock Plus), Windows 10, just over 400 tabs open, under 10% CPU, under 2GB of RAM (on a 16GB machine). If I freak it out by doing a bunch of flipping through dormant tabs, I can spike CPU pretty good as it does…
I wrote a simple bit of code to calculate the size of index pages with includes (js, css, images) and here's what I get: page resource total url (b) (b) (Kb) ---------------------------------------------- 33857 143 34.0 news.ycombinator.com 62690 55975 118.7 arstechnica.com 11844 223862 235.7 seldomlogical.com 218837 765943 984.8 newyorktimes.com l592771 545304 1138.1 guardian.co.uk The one thing I notice watching th…
Would enjoy seeing the source.
implemented in py using
- Beautiful Soup 4
- Requests
- htmllib
Core idea is to grab an index url and determine size of page and resources by looking at urls likely to be pulled by page. JS not implemented from what I can read. Method is something like:
* pull index page with requests by url
* extract headers
* build list of resource urls
* look at content type to determine new request
* extract images, text, css from urls in page
* look at content length to determine size
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we stop the "sellout" business? Having a clearly stated and one-click reversible whitelist is neither dishonest nor bad for the user. I like having the option to support sites I enjoy without massively inconveniencing myself. You prefer maximum adblocking, and that's fine, but there's nothing at all wrong with giving us both the choice.
> I like having the option to support sites I enjoy without massively inconveniencing myself. So do I, which is why I use Patreon and subscriptions. The side effects of viewing ads are that in addition to supporting the sites you enjoy, you're supporting malware distributors, and helping companies compete on ads rather than the quality of their products. Maybe you don't care about your own attention or data security,…
No, I'm not, because I'm using ABP's vetted ad provider list. This risk of getting malware from one of those is greater than zero, but a whole lot less than the risk I accept by using the internet at all. I might get struck by lightning too, but I don't waste a lot of time worrying about it.
> and helping companies compete on ads rather than the quality of their products.
I'm sorry, you do not get to blame me for the continued existence of capitalism. That's just ridiculous.
> Maybe you don't care about your own attention or data security, but your actions don't just affect you.
Once again, you are trying to turn your personal software preference into a moral issue. My actions re:AdBlock affect you or anyone else exactly as much as my choice of desktop wallpaper.
I wrote a simple bit of code to calculate the size of index pages with includes (js, css, images) and here's what I get: page resource total url (b) (b) (Kb) ---------------------------------------------- 33857 143 34.0 news.ycombinator.com 62690 55975 118.7 arstechnica.com 11844 223862 235.7 seldomlogical.com 218837 765943 984.8 newyorktimes.com l592771 545304 1138.1 guardian.co.uk The one thing I notice watching th…
Would enjoy seeing the source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use a hand-cranked version of this, and have been for over 10 years, I call it WebBookmarks. It's a small bookmarklet that when clicked takes the current tabs URL and adds it as an escaped param onto the WebBookmarks URL and launches WebBookmarks. Then in the WebBookmarks form the Title and URL are already filled in, I assign a category, and click save. Job done. I do this and do not use local machine bookmarks at…
chrome, firefox, and, recently, opera - all do sync your bookmarks across devices/OSes. Do not know about safari, since I do not use Apple products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can we stop the "sellout" business? Having a clearly stated and one-click reversible whitelist is neither dishonest nor bad for the user. It is dishonest and bad for the general public. Users expect their adblocker to block adds; not block 'some' adds because of Mafia practices, or corruption (ie. advertising companies paying large, inappropriate sums of money to the company behind ABP in order to be whitelisted by…
> It is dishonest and bad for the general public. Users expect their adblocker to block adds You still seem to be under the impression that ABP is deceptive. It's not. It explains the "acceptable ads" list and gives you the option to disable it first thing after install. It is not doing anything without the user's knowledge. They're providing a perfectly honest service that you aren't interested in, and you think the…
> I specifically said without inconveniencing myself.
You said you wanted to support your fav site. That is not hard to do with uBlock Origin. You are actually supporting most sites.
You also make it seem like the ABP whitelist isn't inconveniencing. It is; see above.