Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 49MB web page

thatshubham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 389 posts

Re: The 49MB web page

#341

Post by Bender »

chrismorgan wrote: post #198
PunchyHamster wrote: post #20

Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once. They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away. We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit o…

Peanuts! My wife’s workplace has an internal photo gallery page. If your device can cope with it and you wait long enough, it’ll load about 14GB of images (so far). In practice, it will crawl along badly and eventually just crash your browser (or more), especially if you’re on a phone. The single-line change of adding loading=lazy to the elements wouldn’t fix everything, but it would make the page at least basically…

Amazing. Well, any employee that wants more ram could use that internal site as an excuse.

"Why do you want 64 GB RAM in your laptop?"

"I need that to load the gallery"

Re: The 49MB web page

#342

Post by nitwit005 »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #20

Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once. They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away. We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit o…

There's essentially zero chance the developers get to make choices about the ads and ad tracking.

I wouldn't even guarantee it's developers adding it. I'm sure they have some sort of content management system for doing article and ad layout.

Re: The 49MB web page

#343

Post by arthurjj »

userbinator wrote: post #186
jiggawatts wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me personally the most infuriating example of this is the Azure Updates[1] page, which in my job I need to check nearly daily to see what's reaching EoL, what's new, etc... A couple of years ago they redeveloped it as a SPA app. The original server-rendered version of it worked just fine , but it "had" to be made into an interactive client-side monstrosity that loads many times slower for "reasons". It doesn't ev…

GitHub also got infected with this horrible "JS SPA" disease shortly after MS bought them. Now you can't even browse files or view issues without it. If they can't get it right, who can!? Berkshire Hathaway, apparently: https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ Pure content, not fluff, and even has a small but unobtrusive ad.

My favorite part of that site, besides it loading incredibly fast, is even though it has an ad, for a wholly subsidiary, on it it is hard coded in the html.

Re: The 49MB web page

#344

Post by allreduce »

sublinear wrote: post #33
PunchyHamster wrote: post #20

Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once. They have put in ticket with ops that the server is slow and could we look at it. So we looked. Every single video on a page with long video list pre-loaded a part of it. The single reason the site didn't ran like shit for them is coz office had direct fiber to out datacenter few blocks away. We really shouldn't allow web developers more than 128kbit o…

I'm pretty damn sure those videos were put on the page because someone in marketing wanted them. I'm pretty sure then QA complained the videos loaded too slowly, so the preloading was added. Then, the upper management responsible for the mess shrugged their shoulders and let it ship. You're not insightful for noticing a website is dog slow or that there is a ton of data being served (almost none of which is actually…

And the devs are responsible for finding a good technical solution under these constraints. If they can't, for communicating their constraints to the rest of the team so a better tradeoff can be found.

Re: The 49MB web page

#345

Post by pibaker »

neya wrote: post #204
pibaker wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like the state of journalism either but you realize this is a vicious cycle, no? People not paying for news (by buying newspaper, or more importantly paying for classified ads) leading to low quality online reporting leading to people not wanting to pay for online news.

It is an interesting view point. The core issue is journalists have just become middle-men in a free information era and demanding money for it. Like I said, what's to stop me (or someone) to simply write a crawler/agent that just gathers data on a bunch of sites where information is curated (like X, HN, Reddit) and presenting it to me in a readable format? I think people see this and hence the reluctance to pay. The…

> a free information era

Not all information is out there for free, monetarily and in terms of personal liberty. News articles frequently quote "sources inside" some three letter agencies or major corporations who will face consequences if they speak to the public under their real names, and will be rightfully dismissed if spoken anonymously without a journalist being able to ascertain their identity. There is also information that is only spread behind closed doors — trade shows, conferences, sometimes even governmental meetings — where the participants may not want the public to know what they are doing. Then there is the investigative digging, knowing who to ask questions and what questions to ask…

I understand you may think all journalism is just reddit and twitter compilations but it was not always the case. Most people, you likely included, do not even know what they are missing out when their local journalism collapses (again, due to loss of newspaper sell and classified ad revenues) and leaves everyone in the dark about what is going on in local politics.

Re: The 49MB web page

#346

Post by Eisenstein »

WarmWash wrote: post #309
Eisenstein wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Running a business' is not carte blanche to do whatever you like to get money, and it does not silence valid criticism. Businesses still exist in society and have to act accordingly. A primary mechanism that society has to enforce rules is criticism and shame.

Have you ever entertained that maybe consumers should act accordingly too? That website is loaded with too many ads, I left it and am not going back. Not That website has too many ads, I'm getting an ad blocker and going back.

A business is not entitled to make people look at their ads. If they offer something in a publicly accessible place and they get ad eyeballs, good for them. If they don't, sucks for them. If they don't like it there are plenty of other markets they can do business in.

Re: The 49MB web page

#347

Post by Nine99 »

DorkyPup wrote: post #232

Author here. Woke up in today to see this on the front page, thank you to the person who submitted it! Initially, my biggest fear was the HN "Hug of Death" taking it down. Happily, Cloudflare's edge caching absorbed 19.24 GB of bandwidth in a few hours with a 98.5% cache hit ratio, so the origin server barely noticed. The discussions here about DNS-level blocking and Pi-hole are spot on. It's interesting that the bur…

Can you add to clean reading experience by exchanging the unreadable font (Outfit Thin) with one that is readable?

Re: The 49MB web page

#348

Post by Nine99 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #299
donohoe wrote: post #269

I started on this when project when I was at The New Yorker. I had just manage to convince people to give us space to do web performance optimization - and then we had to drop it quickly to work on AMP. Very frustrating. This site was created to give developers and pms some ammunition to work on improving load speed https://webperf.xyz/

The leader https://nautil.us on your board is incredibly fast!

[dead]

Re: The 49MB web page

#349

Post by pocksuppet »

Bratmon wrote: post #100
pocksuppet wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

48MB

Which MB should they cut out? Bear in mind that any cut that reduces their CPM or rate of conversation to paid will have to also include an equivalent reduction in their staff.

Reminds me of the recent discussion about how news websites have to get more shit as they lose users, but wait no they don't because nobody heard of a restaurant making worse food because people didn't want to eat there, because that would become a death spiral very quickly.

(Can @dang explain why he decided to rate-limit me now?)

Re: The 49MB web page

#350

Post by WarmWash »

Eisenstein wrote: post #346
WarmWash wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever entertained that maybe consumers should act accordingly too? That website is loaded with too many ads, I left it and am not going back. Not That website has too many ads, I'm getting an ad blocker and going back.

A business is not entitled to make people look at their ads. If they offer something in a publicly accessible place and they get ad eyeballs, good for them. If they don't, sucks for them. If they don't like it there are plenty of other markets they can do business in.

You're not entitled to any webpage except your own...
Post reply on HN