The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
idlewords.com
The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#2It's funny to think that Moore's has meant that applications just get less efficient but there is no such concept for internet speeds.
In reality, it seems that people have just settled on a response time that's acceptable and devs try to stay within that window in most cases.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#3It's funny to think that Moore's has meant that applications just get less efficient but there is no such concept for internet speeds. In reality, it seems that people have just settled on a response time that's acceptable and devs try to stay within that window in most cases.
> In reality, it seems that people have just settled on a response time that's acceptable and devs try to stay within that window in most cases.
More specifically, every time CPUs or browsers get better, publishers look at their metrics and go "Oh! PLT at 95th percentile is down! Great, now we can add more trackers while still hitting our perf target!" and so the gain is immediately gobbled up -- we're in a Red Queen Race and websites will never get faster. I cannot wait for the adtech ecosystem to collapse, what a godawful waste of resources this is.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#4Yeah, but that page is ugly.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#5My strategy has been to disable all javascript by default, and whitelist specific sites. So far I'm pleased with the result, especially how fast most of the random HN/Reddit links load.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#6There are few websites these days that don't get the cores a fizzing and your laptop gradually doing your thighs to a medium rare, without an ad blocker.
The article had me giggling to the point of having to explain myself to wifey.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#7It's funny to think that Moore's has meant that applications just get less efficient but there is no such concept for internet speeds. In reality, it seems that people have just settled on a response time that's acceptable and devs try to stay within that window in most cases.
> In reality, it seems that people have just settled on a response time that's acceptable and devs try to stay within that window in most cases. More specifically, every time CPUs or browsers get better, publishers look at their metrics and go "Oh! PLT at 95th percentile is down! Great, now we can add more trackers while still hitting our perf target!" and so the gain is immediately gobbled up -- we're in a Red Queen…
I agree with your sentiment, and I think it's just one facet of a broader issue with how advertising/marketing is rampant. For example, you can pay to see a movie in a theater, and still get shown ads.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#8Wonderfully put, especially this sad tidbit:
I tried to capture a movie of myself scrolling through the Verge Apple watch review, but failed. The graphics card on my late-model Apple laptop could literally not cope with the load.
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#9My strategy has been to disable all javascript by default, and whitelist specific sites. So far I'm pleased with the result, especially how fast most of the random HN/Reddit links load.
Every now (when I break X through a badly chosen compiler flag or whatever) and then I use Lynx. It takes me right back to WAIS n Gopher before this newfangled www thing appeared 8)
I used to telnet a VAX, then a X25 PAD, then to the outer reaches of JANET then to NIST (I think). Then I got to fire up Gopher. sigh (not) the good old days. I can't even remember why - probably to download fractal porn or something equally bloody pointless. I spent three months staffing a helpdesk with no users in a rather well funded organisation in '91 ...
Re: The Website Obesity Crisis (2015)
#10[deleted]