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

381–389 of 389 posts

Re: The 49MB web page

#381

Post by Gormo »

zahlman wrote: post #38

This site more or less practices what it preaches. `newsbanner.webp` is 87.1KB (downloaded and saved; the Network tab in Firefox may report a few times that and I don't know why); the total image size is less than a meg and then there's just 65.6KB of HTML and 15.5 of CSS. And it works without JavaScript... but there does appear to be some tracking stuff. A deferred call out to Cloudflare, a hit counter I think? and…

It's likely a static site being hosted on Cloudflare Pages, which auto-inserts beacon.js.

Re: The 49MB web page

#382

Post by 75th »

maxloh wrote: post #165
snickerer wrote: post #107

Allowing scripting on websites (in the mid-90s) was a completely wrong decision. And an outrage. Programs are downloaded to my computer and executed without me being able to review them first—or rely on audits by people I trust. That’s completely unacceptable; it’s fundamentally flawed. Of course, you disable scripts on websites. But there are sites that are so broken that they no longer work properly, since the deve…

> Programs are downloaded to my computer and executed without me being able to review them first—or rely on audits by people I trust. JavaScript and WebAssembly programs are always executed in a sandboxed VM, without read access to the host OS files (unless, of course, you grant it). Enabling scripting was a necessary step for interactive websites. Without it, a full page load would be required every time you upvote…

In the world we have now, limiting XMLHttpRequest and Fetch to the same host as the current page would be great. But if that had always been the limitation, I fear that the adware peddlers would have just gotten proficient at shipping PHP packages/extensions that you could run on the same server as your site, and we'd be in largely the same situation, except that blocking the stuff would be harder than it is for us today.

Re: The 49MB web page

#383

Post by kridsdale3 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #319
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried to fight against the introduction of GTM in a project I worked on; we spent a lot of effort on coding, reviewing, testing, optimizing and minimizing client-side code before our end-users would see it, and the analytics people want a shortcut to inject any JS anywhere? I didn't win that one, but I did make sure that it would only load after the user agreed to tracking cookies and the like.

Similar story here. I had to remind them multiple times, that the website was not conforming with the law, and explain multiple times, that the consent dialog was not implemented correctly, or point out, that stuff was loaded before consenting, etc. They mostly found it annoying, of course. And of course no one thanked me for saving the business from running into any complications with the law. As far as I know, I wa…

They likely saw you as a narc.

The law is just an annoying thing getting in the way of our profits.

Re: The 49MB web page

#384

Post by efilife »

firefoxd wrote: post #316
quectophoton wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, do you have (and want to share) stats about requests per second? It's always nice to know these things for future reference. No worries if not :)

Not the author, but last year I wrote about my experience being on #1 on HN [0]. I created a visualization of the requests hitting my server. [0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/surviving-the-hug-of-death

Very cool post! I enjoyed it a lot! Do you have any more backend insights like this on your blog? I'd happily read those.

Btw. was the writing assisted by AI or is it all you?

Re: The 49MB web page

#385

Post by pacifika »

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.

That’s confusing a webpage that’s rendered by the user with a pdf

Re: The 49MB web page

#386

Post by CarlitosHighway »

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…

> Our developers managed to run around 750MB per website open once.

This breaks my brain..."run around 750MB" "per website" "open once".

Do you mean your company had several websites (as in unique websites), and each had 750MB? Or the transferred data volume of each was 750MB? Or just the first page? Or the source code?

And do you mean "open once", as in "once upon a time", or if you open the website one time? Or did your developers open and shut websites, and the open ones had 750MB? Or one time when you entered your developer's office space, you saw they had opened several websites on their computers, random ones, and by coincidence you saw the network tabs and each was 750MB data transferred?

Re: The 49MB web page

#387

Post by NegativeLatency »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #330
NegativeLatency wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn’t want to upgrade the memory?

It’s the speed of the JavaScript compiler, on those old browsers they were expected to handle a few kilobytes max of event listeners. The chrome vs Firefox browser wars sped up JavaScript compilation by 10x at least

Yes I was alive for that. Just said that because that Mac could take up to 1.5GB of RAM

Re: The 49MB web page

#388

Post by willywanker »

This article is just the biggest justification for using an adblocker. Just imagine none of this nonsense affecting your system resources and user experience, just uninterrupted content. It's how I've been surfing since 1999. I get viscerally disgusted if I ever have to look at another person's laptop or phone screen.

Re: The 49MB web page

#389

Post by sayamqazi »

albedoa wrote: post #379
xp84 wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at literally every website you use. How many of them aren’t doing shitty things like what’s being described? If you want to define every single organization as ‘broken’… okay then. It’s the organizations. But I will still blame the people whose job is supposedly UI and the “experience” of users, but who mostly just want to make their own kewl widgets because they think they have exquisite taste and are smarter t…

[flagged]

It took me 15 minutes to convince the UX designer on our team that autofill is a good thing for certain fields and why it is a bad idea to force-style the autofilled fields.
Post reply on HN