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

41–50 of 389 posts

Re: The 49MB web page

#41

Post by Joel_Mckay »

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…

In general, how people communicate internally and with the public is important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_law

Have a wonderful day =3

Re: The 49MB web page

#42

Post by userbinator »

galphanet wrote: post #19

This is just the top of the iceberg. Don't get me started on airlines websites (looking at you Air Canada), where the product owner, designers, developers are not able to get a simple workflow straight without loading Mb of useless javascript and interrupt the user journey multiple times. Give me back the command line terminal like Amadeus, that would be perfect. How can we go back to a Web where websites are designe…

How can we go back to a Web where websites are designed to be used by the user and not for the shareholders?

Loudly oppose the trendchasing devs who have been brainwashed into the "newer is better" mindset by Big Tech. I'm sure the shareholders would want to reduce the amount they spend on server/bandwidth costs and doing "development and maintenance" too.

Simple HTML forms can already make for a very usable and cheap site, yet a whole generation of developers have been fed propaganda about how they need to use JS for everything.

Re: The 49MB web page

#43

Post by zahlman »

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…

"Developers" here clearly refers to the entire organization responsible. The internal politics of the foo.com providers are not relevant to Foo users.

Re: The 49MB web page

#44

Post by sublinear »

arccy wrote: post #39
sublinear wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds just like a "helpless" dev that shifts blame to anyone but themselves.

Do you have a suggestion how else to handle the situation I described?

Re: The 49MB web page

#45

Post by bergheim »

decimalenough wrote: post #3

This is why people continue to lament Google Reader (and RSS in general): it was a way to read content on your own terms, without getting hijacked by ads.

What on earth do you have to rely on alphabet, an ad company, to read rss for? there are many other options, that are not made by an ad company.

Google Reader was never the answer. It's such a shame that people even here don't realize that relying on Google for that had interests at odds - and you weren't part of the equation at all.

Well, except for your data. You didn't give them enough data. So they shut down shop. Gmail though, ammirite? :D

Yeah I wonder why gmail was not one of the shut down products /s

Re: The 49MB web page

#46

Post by hobs »

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…

From the perspective of the devs, they have a responsibility for saying something literally wont fly anywhere, ever, saying the business is responsible for every bad decision is a complete abrogation of your responsibilities.

Re: The 49MB web page

#47

Post by cjs_ac »

My family's first broadband internet connection, circa 2005, came with a monthly data quota of 400 MB.

The fundamental problem of journalism is that the economics no longer works out. Historically, the price of a copy of a newspaper barely covered the cost of printing; the rest of the cost was covered by advertising. And there was an awful lot of advertising: everything was advertised in newspapers. Facebook Marketplace and Craigslist were a section of the newspaper, as was whichever website you check for used cars or real estate listings. Journalism had to be subsidised by advertising, because most people aren't actually that interested in the news to pay the full cost of quality reporting; nowadays, the only newspapers that are thriving are those that aggressively target those who have an immediate financial interest in knowing what's going on: the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and so on.

The fact is that for most people, the news was interesting because it was new every day. Now that there is a more compelling flood of entertainment in television and the internet, news reporting is becoming a niche product.

The lengths that news websites are going to to extract data from their readers to sell to data brokers is just a last-ditch attempt to remain profitable.

Re: The 49MB web page

#48

Post by keane »

hilbert42 wrote: post #11

These days the NYT is in a race to the bottom. I no longer even bother to bypass ads let alone read the news stories because of its page bloat and other annoyances. It's just not worth the effort. Surely news outlets like the NYT must realize that savvy web surfers like yours truly when encountering "difficult" news sites—those behind firewalls and or with megabytes of JavaScript bloat—will just go elsewhere or load…

It’s hard to beat https://lite.cnn.com and https://text.npr.org (I imagine their own employees likely use these as well) or https://newsminimalist.com

Re: The 49MB web page

#49

Post by surcap526 »

bsjshshsb wrote: post #6
Bratmon wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten tired of these "Journalists shouldn't try to make their living by finding profitable ads, they should just put in ads that look pretty but pay almost nothing and supplement their income by working at McDonalds" takes.

49MB or homelessness? There is surely other options.

[dead]

Re: The 49MB web page

#50

Post by bot403 »

decimalenough wrote: post #3

This is why people continue to lament Google Reader (and RSS in general): it was a way to read content on your own terms, without getting hijacked by ads.

Why lament it? I've been using Inoreader for over a decade after Google Reader went away. And I gladly pay for it year after year.
Post reply on HN