111–120 of 238 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol. google is sweeping the entire internet not catering to chrome users under the rug and you're concerned with popups on the top 10 bigger sites
Cookie laws have destroyed my web browsing experience much more than amp ever has.
> The logic behind AMP goes like this: web developers suck at making fast websites, let's strip out all the stuff people don't need and cache it on our super-fast servers. Web developers don't suck at making fast websites. Publishers demand tons of ads and tracking scripts. If the person signing the paychecks wants the page to have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS, then the page will have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS…
> If the person signing the paychecks wants the page to have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS, then the page will have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS. I was asked by management to add Google Tag Manager to the company site. When I saw that GTM included 15-20 tracking scripts I told them that unfortunately we can't include it until we have ensured that all of them act in accordance with GDPR. Legal was involved and agre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Include height and width attributes to your tag and the layout shift problem is solved. Those are used to determine the aspect ratio, so even when resized via CSS the browser knows how much space to reserve in the layout.
They are used to determine the intrinsic size. The aspect ratio is also affected by the CSS rules, and doesn't necessarily equal the aspect ratio of the intrinsic size.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"now that signed exchanges have shipped" For Chrome, yes.
That's a good point. Webkit's opposition to Signed Exchanges (ironically, canonically expressed in an HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679621 ) means that I'm stuck with AMP for good performance on iOS for the foreseeable future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This concept is a recent legal development. It’s not obviously correct. Whether or not you think it’s correct, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that the web will be siloed off and cease to be a global network.
It’s really not. The concept of “your house, your rules” can be found in ancient Roman texts. Being a foreigner didn’t suddenly exempt you from the laws of the land.
Fun think about core web vitals and amp: AMP pages will _always_ win core web vitals, because they're measured from google's CDN, where they can be pre-rendered. Unless the page is motherfuckingwebsite.com, the AMP version is going to score better in every metric than a non-AMP version. Core Web Vitals just cements AMP as a shortcut to performance.
That seems pretty unlikely. Do you have any information that backs this up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s really not. The concept of “your house, your rules” can be found in ancient Roman texts. Being a foreigner didn’t suddenly exempt you from the laws of the land.
The difference is that sending a packet to someone's house probably isn't the same as physically being inside their house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you choose to conflate “sending packets to the EU” with “operating in the EU”, you are choosing a future where the internet is siloed off and the web ceases to be a global network. I am not passing judgment - merely stating a fact.
Do the restrictions govern how packets may be sent? Or do they deal with taxes, handling user information, etc?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This concept is a recent legal development. It’s not obviously correct. Whether or not you think it’s correct, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that the web will be siloed off and cease to be a global network.
It’s really not. The concept of “your house, your rules” can be found in ancient Roman texts. Being a foreigner didn’t suddenly exempt you from the laws of the land.
You're not in their "house". You're just communicating with someone who is. If some foreign government has a problem with that communication they should take it up with the party who is physically within their jurisdiction—not that I believe they have any just standing there either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that sending a packet to someone's house probably isn't the same as physically being inside their house.
You think it’s unusual for a government to limit or put stipulations on what you can send into their country?