TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Bullshit Web

1017 点作者 codesections将近 7 年前

88 条评论

cheezymoogle将近 7 年前
I&#x27;ve said this before, but it bears repeating:<p>Moby Dick is 1.2mb uncompressed in plain-text. That&#x27;s lower than the &quot;average&quot; news website by quite a bit--I just loaded the New York Times front page. It was 6.6mb. that&#x27;s more than 5 copies of Moby Dick, solely for a gateway to the actual content that I want. A secondary reload was only 5mb.<p>I then opened a random article. The article itself was about 1,400 words long, but the page was 5.9mb. That&#x27;s about 4kb per word without including the gateway (which is required if you&#x27;re not using social media). Including the gateway, that&#x27;s about 8kb per word, which is actually about the size of the actual content of the article itself.<p>So all told, to read just one article from the New York Times, I had to download the equivalent of ten copies of Moby Dick. That&#x27;s about 4,600 pages. That&#x27;s approaching the entirety of George R.R. Martin&#x27;s A Song of Ice and Fire, without appendices.<p>If I check the NY Times just 4 times a day and read three articles each time, I&#x27;m downloading 100mb worth of stuff (83 Moby-Dicks) to read 72kb worth of plaintext.<p>Even ignoring first-principles ecological conservatism, that&#x27;s just insanely inefficient and wasteful, regardless of how inexpensive bandwidth and computing power are in the west.<p>EDIT: I wrote a longer write-up on this a while ago on a personal blog, but don&#x27;t want it to be hugged to death:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;txti.es&#x2F;theneedforplaintext" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;txti.es&#x2F;theneedforplaintext</a>
评论 #17656340 未加载
评论 #17655434 未加载
评论 #17657662 未加载
评论 #17656781 未加载
评论 #17656608 未加载
评论 #17658377 未加载
评论 #17657332 未加载
评论 #17657179 未加载
评论 #17657019 未加载
评论 #17658900 未加载
评论 #17655939 未加载
评论 #17655640 未加载
评论 #17656379 未加载
评论 #17660449 未加载
评论 #17655475 未加载
评论 #17655977 未加载
评论 #17657963 未加载
评论 #17662473 未加载
评论 #17657595 未加载
评论 #17656386 未加载
评论 #17659074 未加载
评论 #17657747 未加载
评论 #17658100 未加载
评论 #17662116 未加载
评论 #17664561 未加载
评论 #17655577 未加载
评论 #17656813 未加载
ukulele将近 7 年前
Unpopular opinion alert:<p>Maybe the &quot;bullshit&quot; is only bullshit to you, the thorny tech-savvy reader. Maybe businesses have tried the plaintext approach, and their business was improved by adding fonts, stylesheets, API calls, spinners, scripts, high-res images, and god knows what else. Maybe speed improvements are not important beyond a certain point. Maybe 5MB doesn&#x27;t matter to most people. Maybe micro-optimization is costly in large organizations.<p>Maybe other people making these decisions aren&#x27;t idiots, and maybe, just maybe, they&#x27;re even thornier and tech-savvier than you.
评论 #17655877 未加载
评论 #17655684 未加载
评论 #17656792 未加载
评论 #17655917 未加载
评论 #17655845 未加载
评论 #17660824 未加载
评论 #17660000 未加载
评论 #17656768 未加载
评论 #17656421 未加载
评论 #17655766 未加载
评论 #17655876 未加载
评论 #17656000 未加载
评论 #17656689 未加载
评论 #17657799 未加载
评论 #17658713 未加载
评论 #17656676 未加载
评论 #17659433 未加载
评论 #17659335 未加载
评论 #17656003 未加载
评论 #17656552 未加载
评论 #17658746 未加载
评论 #17655941 未加载
评论 #17661399 未加载
评论 #17656761 未加载
makecheck将近 7 年前
We have a ridiculously-backwards model on the web where you essentially pay for what you use (via your data plan, and via forced ads prior to promised content) without having <i>any</i> way to know in advance what it will end up costing you to display content. Heck, you don’t even know if the content will display <i>correctly</i> after all that loading. Worse, there are many ways to trigger loads accidentally, meaning you may want <i>none</i> of the content but you end up paying for it through your data plan.<p>We desperately need <i>absolute maximums</i> enforceable in the browser, reversing the firehose. I want to opt your site <i>in</i> to more data use, after I trust your site. And I expect sites to work within <i>my</i> limit or not receive visits.
评论 #17658560 未加载
评论 #17657166 未加载
评论 #17660107 未加载
nostromo将近 7 年前
It&#x27;s not just publishers. My current org uses SalesForce and it&#x27;s frustratingly slow. Opening a single record takes several seconds as every single interface element is generated dynamically and then populated, seemingly one at a time.<p>When it&#x27;s finally done loading, you click on a dropdown, and then the dropdown just shows you a loading spinner, as your client asks the server what should be populated in the dropdown menu. And of course it takes another second. Clicking virtually anything, including back (which should be instantaneous on a proper webapp), will present you with yet another loading spinner and a multi-second delay.<p>I understand the benefits of building webapps this way, but the benefits primarily accrue to the developers of the app and not to the customer.
评论 #17655568 未加载
评论 #17655769 未加载
评论 #17655608 未加载
评论 #17661426 未加载
pasta将近 7 年前
What I think is difficult is that most people think a website should be an experience.<p>The client wants this, the designer wants this, the marketeer wants this and even most users want this.<p>So that&#x27;s how huge headers with high res photo&#x27;s are born.<p>After that the site must be online asap and the developer doesn&#x27;t have or take the time to load images responsive.<p>Combine this with a framework that takes 200ms to init and we are where we are now.<p>(And then ofcourse there is the marketeer telling you to include a script from x,y and z.)<p>With the right tools you can build a fast web, but I think most developers are not experienced, lazy or just don&#x27;t care. (You don&#x27;t need to include 0.5MB of FontAwesome when you only use 2 icons...)<p>And yeah: AMP is a joke.
评论 #17656883 未加载
评论 #17655732 未加载
评论 #17656327 未加载
评论 #17655899 未加载
pmarreck将近 7 年前
I am increasingly encountering news sites that detect ad blocking software and (understandably) refuse to show me their content as a result <i>but the problem is that I enabled ad-blocking on those sites to begin with because they were loading nasty javascript ads on the fly which pegged my CPU!</i><p>As a web dev, I feel extremely conscious about what I&#x27;d call &quot;javascript library hygiene&quot;, and I feel that whoever&#x27;s in charge of many of the news sites out there, just does not give a shit.<p>Respect my computer&#x27;s resources and you&#x27;ll get your ads re-enabled.
评论 #17655464 未加载
评论 #17655990 未加载
ryanianian将近 7 年前
Sorry but this piece comes across as entitled and whiny. It&#x27;s easy to point out how bloated and terrible most modern large sites are and guffaw in disgust at the counts of xhttp requests and scripts that are loaded in order to provide no user benefit.<p>But just moaning about it probably won&#x27;t make the problem go away. Simply rendering text isn&#x27;t a business-model anymore unfortunately, and publishers are doing everything they can to actually make their content profitable.<p>Look: I hate the modern web as much as anyone and I always browse with ad-blocking on. But I turn it off for sites that I get real value from, and I pay monthly membership fees to news sites that I believe respect me as a visitor. My way of working isn&#x27;t super great for me or for publishers (and I doubt most users turn off adblock for sites they value).<p>I was hoping this article would show some empathy for publishers and <i>why</i> they would start down the road of such user-hostile behavior. A complete piece would paint a vision for how to end the madness with a solution that is acceptable both to publishers and viewers. I don&#x27;t know what that solution is, but I strongly doubt that just moaning and counting xhttp requests is part of it.
评论 #17658386 未加载
评论 #17656159 未加载
scarygliders将近 7 年前
&gt; People really hate autoplaying video<p>Yes, this a billion-fold!<p>Every single newspaper site I peruse uses autoplaying video.<p>The experience goes like this:<p>Load up the front page of newspaper site. Select an article of interest and click on its link. Article loads. A video player pops into existence on the lower right hand corner of the page, and the video starts playing.<p>Most annoying. However it gets more egregious...<p>The video player floats when you scroll down the page, until you reach the part of the page where it usually resides - and warps over into its little area - until you scroll past - whereupon it pops back up on the lower right hand side of your browser again.<p>Aaaaaargh!<p>Just as egregious : after viewing a video you might even have been interested inviewing, another video is automatically loaded onto that same player, 99.9% of the time on some completely unrelated subject.<p>Y&#x27;know, someone, somewhere, woke up one morning and thought &quot;Great idea! Let&#x27;s do &lt;what is described above&gt;!&quot; - why can&#x27;t the message that &quot;People really hate autoplaying video&quot; get back to whoever makes the decisions on user experiences, so that they just quit doing the above bullshit?
评论 #17656197 未加载
评论 #17656190 未加载
评论 #17661898 未加载
评论 #17658059 未加载
edhelas将近 7 年前
It&#x27;s not only the web anymore. What about the desktop Slack that can take up to 1Gb of RAM for a &quot;simple&quot; chat client.
评论 #17655329 未加载
评论 #17655340 未加载
评论 #17655348 未加载
评论 #17656775 未加载
评论 #17655631 未加载
moviuro将近 7 年前
I see no one mentioned the extraordinary &quot;Reader mode&quot; of Firefox. [0]<p>It&#x27;s literaly the one feature for which I stopped using Chrome at work. It&#x27;s just so damn good.<p>For instance, [1] becomes [2]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;kb&#x2F;firefox-reader-view-clutter-free-web-pages" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.mozilla.org&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;kb&#x2F;firefox-reader-view-clu...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;radiobruxelleslibera.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;06&#x2F;26&#x2F;intermediated-of-the-world-unite&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;radiobruxelleslibera.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;06&#x2F;26&#x2F;intermediated-of...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lh3.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;smexxUICwLXKbzEEbLlIPQ_qGcKxqVaGtRUkArPHtnk1vcZgoRDOld8-wAwHE4_S4RqU4Fcpc7RPX8vLdxItAZIs_KsV-YgdkU5l58xP3OSpu7HDjTxm9X4QgHw1-oqrHC68AuQk-U_0uUyriv0pMedeZn9nzTxD7IvxRvSrdXDhpIARigFOuqdxJfDjEzGM10mFKV_rqO_6DWU_5z2H8gEHRoo5_p_KEJAfjRVr18dUzXcI0B-rdyuYHkXHFztHyb8l0NIHtwnbYi7Ax-IwPLh3SBT33KnCkm5fp-z4M-J0tU5XPrEx-5Hu7yivtsETyFZw7SVd1aQVhQlX3PnWMRt3tS1c1YirpbY_Z3v_YNzKoG4L15ItUyX3QaUwbKsVL7qE7jwGWs8losF1xMQV1Azs0b1ZizuqzW_Wj715ng4SRa5W1jv5l00Ce0QEs5m9jAKSfX1G7dx0T99l8RN35C6aTvJ29mTdov7nwviuxKcwZduKM52HcV3MsN4qERPxCM6suJShdGJZdYvJuSncaJD9ijFvqmDgYFpZQLbGz20qN6fLGI5r1kiGhzfaX2K29E3Wf19gPLW8UPq3P_m7wQvyGrBLma6TA5hIBlO-=w720-h823-no" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lh3.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;smexxUICwLXKbzEEbLlIPQ_qGc...</a> (that&#x27;s a screenshot on photos.google.com - don&#x27;t have access to imgur or similar)
评论 #17661184 未加载
评论 #17660999 未加载
Sir_Cmpwn将近 7 年前
I think I heard this on Hacker News, but I don&#x27;t recall who from. Whenever I see a popup begging me to sign up for a spam list, I put in postmaster@that-domain.com now.
评论 #17658058 未加载
评论 #17659329 未加载
评论 #17658092 未加载
htor将近 7 年前
the web was born, and everyone was happy for this new thing. then advertisement came along and poisoned that too, just like tv, just like radio. we just can&#x27;t have nice things because someone somewhere wants to squeeze all the pennies out of your pockets in whatever medium you use.<p>obligatory links for website obesity and bullshit web:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;idlewords.com&#x2F;talks&#x2F;website_obesity.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;idlewords.com&#x2F;talks&#x2F;website_obesity.htm</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com&#x2F;</a>
agumonkey将近 7 年前
I&#x27;ve read others comment on the lack of empathy for publishers. 10$ that the author doesn&#x27;t blame them.<p>That said, this is a weird situation, to which I became allergic. To the point I started r&#x2F;vanillahtml to stack websites that gave me that feeling of fat-free moment.<p>One thing you should do, is install dillo, and enjoy the web. It&#x27;s usually faster than elinks, chrome whatever. Sure you&#x27;ll get horrendous css rendering, no javascript. Still, it&#x27;s worth seeing in person how instant a click &#x2F; request &#x2F; render can be. Also 10 tabs in dillo is probably 2MB.<p># tech momentum<p>There were logical reasons to what we&#x27;re in today. I was in there too at first. I wanted hyper dynamic webpages, more capable css, more live scriptability. But along the way I started to feel the unintended consequences. long loading, idiotic user interactions, regression in basic ergonomics, huge resource consumption, and worst of all, the twist it put on webpage producers. Open a 2000 webpage you&#x27;ll see 20% chrome, 80% content. Now on average it&#x27;s the opposite, not really 80&#x2F;20, more like 50&#x2F;20 with a bonus 30% popups (gdpr, cookies, newsletters, ads). Tech didn&#x27;t provide value, it&#x27;s root for pollution.<p># societal re-rooting<p>old web was a side game, people got into it for the thrill of it, it gave a lot of interesting subtle and dense content. Now it&#x27;s all business trying to live in the web era, it&#x27;s a competition thing, with all that it entails. The web today looks like main street. Neon signs, noise, .. ugh.<p>also with real-time social platforms you see how most websites are low value, and reactive. It&#x27;s changed a bit, people noticed that there was a need for less shallow, but it seems rare. Although to be honest I stopped monitoring if there was more of them today.<p>I agree with people comparing a website today with other kinds of texts. I feel super void when I read most of the web, and usually, a .txt file is a high guarantee that I&#x27;ll find something more personal or technical than anything on the web. And it&#x27;s near free. If the web was caring about communicating, we&#x27;d just have to extend SMS to 640kB with a streaming protocol in case you&#x27;re reading wikipedia.<p>ps: oh and I love these <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lite.cnn.io&#x2F;en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lite.cnn.io&#x2F;en</a> (was trying to make a repository of them), so much love to those who push that kind of idea
评论 #17656767 未加载
GuiA将近 7 年前
<i>You know how building wider roads doesn’t improve commute times, as it simply encourages people to drive more? It’s that, but with bytes and bandwidth instead of cars and lanes.</i><p>That&#x27;s the core insight. Higher availability of resources leads people to consume more of said resources - in tech, typically for more and more abstraction layers to deal with hardware of ever growing complexity to make the lives of developers easier, but at the cost of stagnation or regression for some metrics. See also: &quot;Why Modern Computers Struggle to Match the Input Latency of an Apple IIe&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.extremetech.com&#x2F;computing&#x2F;261148-modern-computers-struggle-match-input-latency-apple-iie" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.extremetech.com&#x2F;computing&#x2F;261148-modern-computer...</a>
评论 #17658714 未加载
mikeabraham将近 7 年前
Amen to every word except this sentence. &quot;Better choices should be made by web developers to not ship this bullshit in the first place.&quot;<p>No developer I know, web or otherwise, wants to do any of this, and all of them are religious in their use of ad blockers and autoplay stoppers.<p>This is the kind of stuff developers are forced to do with guns to their heads by the PMs and marketing teams that actually determine the user experience.
评论 #17658250 未加载
评论 #17655605 未加载
cocoa19将近 7 年前
Another point for the bullshit web: The GDPR cookie consent notification. I really hate clicking on those notifications to make them go away.<p>Designers, can you please just add a non-obtrusive link, instead of a pop up that covers half my browser screen?
评论 #17656579 未加载
评论 #17656808 未加载
评论 #17656140 未加载
评论 #17656302 未加载
评论 #17658414 未加载
评论 #17657015 未加载
soared将近 7 年前
Have you ever seen this discussed outside of HN or dev-centric subreddits? Your average user doesn&#x27;t care about this &#x27;issue&#x27; at all, and thats why it won&#x27;t ever change.<p>Proof the author doesn&#x27;t relate to any typical user:<p>&gt; I’m not asking much of it; I have opened a text-based document on the web<p>Nobody besides devs would open a website and think &quot;Oh this a text-based document opened in a web browser&quot;. Its a website, not a word doc.
评论 #17655814 未加载
评论 #17656363 未加载
评论 #17656694 未加载
dkoston将近 7 年前
I disagree that the AMP cache is the main benefit of AMP. There are plenty of CDNs that give performance similar to, or better than the AMP cache.<p>The only benefit of AMP is that the pages are promoted higher in results.<p>Back to the main topic of the article, the same could be said for the desktop and the mobile phone. Developers and framework builders are constantly adding bloat as cpu&#x2F;memory increase. Since most people aren&#x27;t writing their own frameworks and many are importing large parts of their apps from npm&#x2F;gems&#x2F;etc, everyone gets hit with the bloat. It&#x27;s a vicious cycle for sure.<p>It&#x27;s a shame that so many open source authors add bloat into their packages in exchange for popularity. They want all the users so you get tons of code that&#x27;s never used in 90% of projects.<p>The big example of the above is express. It&#x27;s a terrible cycle as the vast majority of people learning JavaScript have hopped on the express bandwagon and are now creating APIs with mediocre performance by importing a massive webserver they often do not need.<p>Overall though, it seems to show that most people prefer convenience over accuracy and performance (passive aggressive stab at mongo?)
评论 #17658646 未加载
mxuribe将近 7 年前
Oh, wait a minute...what if we twist the existing non-net neutrality for our consumer purposes? What if we had easier mechanisms to slow down the more annoying aspects of websites we visit - such as those extraneous scripts on CNN, etc.? And, as we visit personal blogs that we value, we don&#x27;t slow those down. (And, yes, if you&#x27;re thinking to ask me about netflix, yes i would <i></i>NOT<i></i> slow that down. ;-) Anyway, if we had the &quot;ease&quot; with which to de-incentivize these web platforms, perhaps they&#x27;ll be pushed to slim down their content delivery?<p>Now, before anyone replies with something like, &quot;but you can implement ad blockers, etc.&quot;...yes, i know there are mechanisms...but i mean &quot;easy&quot; mechanisms...that is, something my grandma could implement with ease. i think this would serve to give true power to the consumer both on the net neutrality front as well as the content consumption front.
duxup将近 7 年前
Things are different now.<p>When I was on a modem... pictures, almost any, were bullshit as far as being big and annoying to download. A lot of the time I hated them.<p>Nobody thinks about pictures that way anymore. I suspect that goes for a lot of the bullshit listed in that article.<p>I&#x27;m no fan of tracking or auto play videos, but web applications are a thing now and the people visiting sites, building them, and paying for them want more than just a page... they want a whole application. All three of those (viewer, builder, dude who pays &#x2F; host) aren&#x27;t on the same page, but they also are largely happy to go down the road of bigger pages.<p>I&#x27;m all for efficiency and kicking some stuff to the curb, but as for size, it is not on the mind of most people.<p>I&#x27;d be all for a class of retro &#x2F; minimal sites or something, but it is clear for a lot of things web apps is where we&#x27;re going.
评论 #17658512 未加载
评论 #17656185 未加载
stickfigure将近 7 年前
Try these sites <i>without javascript</i>. It&#x27;s AMAZING.<p>The chrome extension I&#x27;m using (&quot;Quick Javascript Switcher&quot;) disables JS on a domain-by-domain basis, so it doesn&#x27;t break the whole web. Every news site I&#x27;ve tried is massively more usable with Javascript disabled - loads in a snap, scrolls without jerky motion, zero popups or autoplay videos.<p>Usually you get all the text and most of the images. Some news websites have javascript-driven photo collages, but it&#x27;s just one buttonclick to enable JS for that session, and I can decide to do so after reading the text and judging the wait worthwhile.<p>I feel like I&#x27;ve stumbled on a secret life hack. Try it.
评论 #17657202 未加载
评论 #17658026 未加载
z3phyr将近 7 年前
I am using a 4GB RAM HP Probook for the last 5 years (Student Artifact). You have to be very disciplined to use it though. I never open more than 10 tabs on the browser. While programming and testing, I generally close the browser. Use only lightweight WM. Avoid using JS based UI. My stack is vim&#x2F;emacs (sorry) + a compiler (clang&#x2F;rustc&#x2F;sbcl) or perl&#x2F;python + zsh&#x2F;bash (userspace) + a terminal emulator + occasional firefox + wget&#x2F;curl and weechat<p>I read pdfs with emacs. My computer&#x27;s pretty fast wrt my peer&#x27;s higher spec machine (16GB) with VS Code, Slack, Chrome and whatnot.. But he does play games better!
jjuhl将近 7 年前
One reason why I subscribe to <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lwn.net&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lwn.net&#x2F;</a> is that it is a fast <i>no bullshit</i> web site. Another is the <i>great</i> content.
z3phyr将近 7 年前
As an external observer, I must say we are going to fast in an unorganized fashion! Software is eating the world and swallowing more than it can chew.<p>Businesses have monetized the web in so much unsustainable way that we have to introspect to clear our shit. What would have gone wrong if the general public still got good high quality old print media while the otherwise tech savvy worked patiently to make a better web? What would have gone wrong if the web remained just a portal to share textual information, while the other people did what they had been doing traditionally?
S_A_P将近 7 年前
Ive long been thinking that the way to &quot;fix&quot; journalism in the US(and possibly rest of the world) is to have apple music&#x2F;spotify like channels that the major publishers broadcast through. It solves the problem of having 50 different 1 dollar per month subscriptions, and aggregates content in a way that I would never have trouble paying for if it were done correctly. This model is already in place for things like Satellite Radio, Cable TV, the aforementioned apple music spotify, netflix, etc.<p>Am I the person that needs to build this??!!
nojvek将近 7 年前
Haha, I think the web is a lot like markets. Buyers will pay up to what they can afford, i.e the best price is the one that the buyer feels very uncomfortable but still pays because they want something and they can’t it anywhere else at a better price.<p>Sometimes this is abused (see US healthcare) but that’s the rule of markets. Demand and Supply.<p>I guess the internet is the same. The media companies will try to use every analytics and ad company under the hood to maximize every little ad click they can get. They will fill the pipes to the brim and implement every dark pattern as long as they make that extra revenue. (See taboola - the scum of clickbait advertising)<p>At the end of the day if you don’t like something. Don’t use it. I rarely visit cnn. I install adblockers and tracking blockers. We fight it with what we have.<p>It’s supply and demand laws. We as consumers install stuff to block annoying things, they as sellers will keep on annoying you as long as you keep on visiting them because a mild annoyance of ads and auto-play videos is how they keep the lights on.<p>The case of Google however is they are on a mission to have a monopoly of search on their browser and ads on their platforms. That’s how they make 90%-ish of their revenue. Google could say whatever the hell they want to say their mission is, their actions and financials clearly say what they value.
kaitari将近 7 年前
This phenomenon is not limited to BS web. Back when virtualization was the new wave, everyone raved at the money&#x2F;space&#x2F;energy savings from running multiple virtual machines on a single server. It was great. Then what happened? Many folks went nuts, spinning up VMs for any and everything, and suddenly needed to spend more money on more physical servers to run more VMs, and an infinite loop.<p>Bloat from convenience.
评论 #17657870 未加载
tabtab将近 7 年前
Humans are inefficient, illogical, and wasteful. &quot;Dilbert&quot; is not actually a comic strip, but a catalog. The only way to stop all this is to <i>Kill All Humans</i>. We await your confirmation__<p>- Bot #72504
NKCSS将近 7 年前
The reason this website currently crumbles under the load is probably because the content is stored in a database, re-queried for every request, even though the content wil hardly ever change. Might be something else to look at ;)
评论 #17655492 未加载
wuliwong将近 7 年前
Lately I&#x27;ve been noticing this with Facebook. It is interesting that in its early stages, my perception of Facebook was that it was a very well built site. It seemed simple, clean, loaded fast, etc. It seemed particularly lean when compared to Myspace. Without really delving into the details of exactly what is happening today, I definitely perceive the web app as being slower. Obviously it is delivering a ton more images and video but nonetheless the experience seems slow. The ios app on the other hand still feels very performant to me. I think their handling of video is really impressive.
评论 #17658044 未加载
tylerjwilk00将近 7 年前
While we&#x27;re on the topic of web performance regression can we please talk about all these damn loading spinners.<p>JS and ajax we&#x27;re supposed to save us.<p>Now instead of one slow page load. I get one slow page with a loading spinner, a login component with a loading spinner, a carousel with a loading spinner, latest news component with loading spinner. Content divs shifting and bouncing every which way as content loads.<p>It looks like some spilled a bucket of <i>ajax-load.gif</i> all over the damn page!<p>I&#x27;d prefer a blank page and the sudden appearance of the entire page.
thecombjelly将近 7 年前
I do all my browsing with uMatrix with everything blocked by default but first party CSS. It really makes the internet a more enjoyable place to be. Pages load much, much faster and it&#x27;s often easier to find and read the content. On mobile it saves a boatload in bandwidth costs. For example, loading a NYTimes article takes 90KB and DOMContentLoaded is in 69ms. Truly much of the other stuff loaded is bullshit because a significant amount of the web is more usable without all the crap.
basicplus2将近 7 年前
Modern televisions and combined recorder-tuners are the same..<p>My old black &amp; white and clolour valve television sets and VHS video recorder are up and running well before their modern equivalents!
eterm将近 7 年前
I&#x27;ve been thinking about building either a local proxy or firefox addon that puts everything into &quot;first-party only&quot; mode unless whitelisted.<p>It would probably break the web (at least the genuine parts) less than disabling javascript wholesale which is just too awkward, but it would vastly cut down on the &quot;bullshit&quot; as this article calls it.<p>It would need some care, for example it would probably have to work from root domains rather than subdomains for matching origin to prevent too much breakage but the improvement in download times would be astronomical, it&#x27;s almost always the case that &quot;bloat&quot; is third-party bloat.<p>Obviously it would need to support a whitelist too so payment processors for example could continue to work, but in general the blacklist approach of ad-blockers just isn&#x27;t working for me.<p>I think some kind of &quot;auto-whitelist&quot; so I&#x27;d need to actively request a domain before requests could be made to them would be the sweet spot for user experience but that itself would require substantial browser integration which I don&#x27;t think could work through a plugin.<p>Perhaps a proxy approach would be the best from a UX perspective then. It could inspect headers to figure out if they&#x27;re primary requests (using similar heuristics to CORS). Primary requests would (or could) be added to an auto-whitelist for future requests.
评论 #17656091 未加载
评论 #17656075 未加载
awinder将近 7 年前
Web developers often don’t have a choice whether to ship bullshit or not. Hell, engineering managers and directors often probably don’t have this choice.<p>The single greatest feature of AMP (which I dislike with great passion, don’t get me wrong) is that it forces broken org structures to make better engineering choices. There is no negotiation. There is no “marketing director is higher on the pecking order”. There is just design constraints placed from outside of the organization that must be followed.
zerb将近 7 年前
Some of the worst offenders are logging webservices. We&#x27;ve replaced a simple text file with a bloated site that requires mousing around, does not support grepping, etc.
buchanae将近 7 年前
Amen!<p>And this article doesn&#x27;t even touch on the bullshit content – I don&#x27;t want 10 websites that all say generally the same thing with different layouts (and 10 times more total bullshit consumed). I can&#x27;t stand the internet today. The experience on mobile is even more unbearable.<p>I want simplicity.<p>Can we all just band together right here and now and create a subnet with a better set of principles?<p>- minimize page weight - minimize duplicate content - minimize UI variation - what else?
评论 #17660091 未加载
mark_l_watson将近 7 年前
My sites are fairly much plain, mostly using a bit of Bootstrap. Because of the new European data protection laws (which I mostly like) I also converted my blogger based blog to generated static resources.<p>Like so many other people I ignore sites with too much baggage. Many news sites have text only versions if you look.<p>I sort of have some adds on my main site that are text links to where my books are sold. Advertising does not have to be resource heavy.
techbio将近 7 年前
UX density is reduced by icons and images. Utility used to be thorough link quality (ie. the portal) but has been reduced to ranking on search endpoints to collect nickels.<p>Here&#x27;s a very useful site that uses Javascript without going near megabytes: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.freeformatter.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.freeformatter.com&#x2F;</a>
petermcneeley将近 7 年前
Everyone demands that the services of the internet have zero explicit cost. This means that all the cost is borne implicitly.
mpax将近 7 年前
It’s not just the web, software in general is getting increasingly bloated.<p>Not in features, but in more and more layers of abstractions.
moolcool将近 7 年前
Mirror: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache:vcwVnjhHivMJ:https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pxlnv.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;bullshit-web&#x2F;+&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=ca" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache:vcwVnj...</a>
lsiebert将近 7 年前
It strikes me that, if people want web developers to load less stuff, there have to be ways to reduce redundancy. It might also make privacy easier.<p>For example, some sort of self hosted standard based framework for tracking common things like scrolling or ad clicks or page visits that supports multiple consumers, both internal to the site publishers for detailed analytics and logging and ad view tracking, and less granular access for external companies that can add value can get information from. Your user&#x27;s data stays on your self hosted user data server, and analytics can make server to server requests for aggregate data with GraphQL or a standardized api at least, improving user privacy.<p>If you really needed additional functionality, there could be standardized add-on modules, or updates to the spec.
majani将近 7 年前
The web is not all bullshit. It&#x27;s just that certain areas of business online it are incentivized to get bloated and others aren&#x27;t. I learnt this through personal experience:<p>On one hand, I own a news site, and on the other hand, I own a price comparison website. The news website started off at a 90% rating on Pagespeed tools but as the ads came in and people complained that the news site looked ancient, that score got whittled down to 30-40% and the page weight also went up by orders of magnitude as well. The price comparison website however, has a 100% rating on Pagespeed tools and has stayed that way because it&#x27;s goal is to get people to the best priced retailer as quickly as possible.
BLKNSLVR将近 7 年前
Whilst this is true, and it already references another analogy in &#x27;bullshit&#x27; jobs, it&#x27;s just another piece of the &#x27;bullshit&#x27; magnetism of human nature.<p>Church, TV, Music, Movies, Conversation, Food, Meetings, Politics, Watching sport<p>The &#x27;bullshit&#x27; to &#x27;worthwhile&#x27; ratio is 95:1 at best.<p>I&#x27;ve just depressed myself.<p>Maybe it&#x27;s a pattern that humans are programmed to follow subconsciously. Our brains cannot handle consuming &#x2F; participating in anything less than 95% bullshit. Maybe it&#x27;s the bullshit time that allows us to cope with the 5% of the &#x27;real&#x27;?<p>Things such as the &#x27;bullshit&#x27; web are just a differently-contexted manifestation of that pattern of behaviour.
dm33tri将近 7 年前
It&#x27;s even harder to understand this width advance of modern web technologies. In 90th you had single channel to download unoptimized GIFs and websites used to be built from these images. Now you bundle, minify and gzip all these stylesheets and scripts which are capable of 1000x what you did back then, and then load (usually precached) analytics script from CDN while fetching mp4&#x27;s in parallel and streaming them on the fly. It&#x27;s just bad developers. Facebook takes about 100ms to load everything (but still has shitty ui). And they build tools so everyone can do this too. And developers now brag how complicated web is.
tombh将近 7 年前
This is in part why I&#x27;m developing <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;html.brow.sh" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;html.brow.sh</a> - a purely text-based web, rendered by a fast <i>remote</i> modern browser.
tlrobinson将近 7 年前
Heh, if you look at the JS console while loading cnn.com you&#x27;ll see the following:<p><pre><code> .d8888b. 888b 888 888b 888 d88P Y88b 8888b 888 8888b 888 888 888 88888b 888 88888b 888 We are trying to make CNN.com faster. 888 888Y88b 888 888Y88b 888 Think you can help? 888 888 Y88b888 888 Y88b888 888 888 888 Y88888 888 Y88888 Send your ideas to: bounty AT cnnlabs DOT com Y88b d88P 888 Y8888 888 Y8888 &quot;Y8888P&quot; 888 Y888 888 Y888</code></pre>
toss1将近 7 年前
&gt;&gt;&quot;... pretty much any CNN article page includes an autoplaying video, a tactic which has allowed them to brag about having the highest number of video starts in their category. ... People really hate autoplaying video.&quot;<p>The result is that, even though I used to watch CNN often, it has been years since I&#x27;ve intentionally opened one of their web pages, and when I accidentally do so, I almost frantically close it to shut off the damn, auto-play -- and that&#x27;s even if I was interested in the video content.<p>I&#x27;ll get it somewhere else, thx.
splittingTimes将近 7 年前
It&#x27;s the _website obesity crisis_ in full swing<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10820445" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10820445</a>
titzer将近 7 年前
The Web is the quintessential human artifact. This is what happens when large groups of people crap and eat from the same pile, the fast, the slow, the brilliant and the stupid, the refined, mundane, bloodthirsty and curious, the intricate and obscure.<p>I think of the web in layers. Not discrete, divisible layers, but more like the layers of any ancient city that&#x27;s seen habitation for centuries. At the lowest level is the oldest stuff: mud huts, stone tools, open fireplaces, graves even. This is like the earliest layers of the web: the webrings, the no-css, no-script HTML bulleted lists, tables of blue links. Even garish black backgrounds. That old web was full of great things; so many enthusiastics and fanatics! So much information and content, written by real people. Short stories, poems, hackers, phreakers, crackers, IRC, that whole great era. That old stone age is mostly buried now, preserved here and there in museum quality, crumbling here and there, broken links, missing images. A mute reminder, hard to find even, of what it was like back then. BACK THEN, before the next layer of the web evolved on top. BACK THEN people on the internet were mostly curious but not nosy or malicious. BACK THEN people put effort into their sites, had to pay money to host their domains, didn&#x27;t need CDNs and VMs and Cloud Computing.<p>But a layer evolved on top of that old web. It came with CSS in my estimation. Pages started getting fancy, using new fonts. Ads started popping up. Ads always started popping up. Search engines popped up. Then people started making money. Little trickles at first, then a gush, then a torrent. Online businesses, the FIRST BUBBLE, and everyone was rushing to pets.com and eBay and online pharmacies...you know, companies selling actual stuff. Amazon. Online publishing, news sites.<p>That bubble blew up. It grew too fast, people went into far too much debt to puff up their businesses. But quietly chugging along, always increasing, the little banners and annoying popups gave way to a more insidious form of advertising...the watching eye behind it all. The internet started watching us. First it was search history, then cookies and then fingerprinting, then whole underground economies of trackers. And all the while the SEO battles and trollers came along, so fast paced...<p>And something...else...grew on top of the web. You can see it now, maybe just the tip, when you go to one of the news sites that the OP talked about. The massive, heavy sites. Those are just the most polished of this massive avalanche of click-baity slide shows and fake news and crap that is heavy, laden with strewn together junk parts and oriented to only one purpose: making money, by hook or crook.<p>Now you can&#x27;t hardly see through this layer anymore. It&#x27;s like a fog. Go to any search engine and search for anything! What do you get? Aggregated, evolved--I won&#x27;t say optimized--evolved content that is designed to keep you away from the older layers. I say evolved because that is exactly the right metaphor--the crap that survived by natural selection and crowded out the other, more carefully crafted, humble and matter-of-fact content. This new crap evolved to get straight to the top of the search ranking and grab those clicks. It doesn&#x27;t matter what the original content was. The more commercial it is, the crappier it is for real content, and the more driven it is towards getting you to click through and BAM make a sale. For god sakes, try to find some neutral information about insurance. Try to find that one guy&#x27;s website that as part of a trip report to the southwest to go hiking with his kids, talks about how the rental agency wouldn&#x27;t reimburse him for a flat tire. Or some basic, old-web archaeology like that. You cannot find that stuff anymore. It&#x27;s hidden by a huge layer of <i>commercial bullshit</i> that is designed to lure you in, sell you crap, get you to sign up for newsletters, take surveys, or at the very least track your ass at the slightest sign you might be interesting. And don&#x27;t think for a minute that it&#x27;s all an accident, or some unforeseen consequence or poor search ranking function. The whole system is set up to, and rewarded by, and fed by, their ability to serve <i>themselves</i>, not you. Make no mistake. If the algorithm makes more money, it&#x27;s gonna get shipped. People might wring their hands about it, but the slippery slope is still slippery, and no one can hold the line forever. Least of all when that takes mental energy and forethought...something SO much better suited to ML algorithms and <i>scale</i>. Just <i>scale</i> up to the whole web.<p>We lost our way. The web isn&#x27;t run by us anymore. It&#x27;s run by <i>them</i>. And <i>them</i>...whoever they are...search engines, advertisers, publishers, people with political agendas, psychos, dictators, people with power. They don&#x27;t even have control either. Look at the news sites and aggregators. They tell you want they want to tell you. You can&#x27;t even set preferences anymore. It&#x27;s all drive by AI. For fuck&#x27;s sake nobody really knows what to tell the AI to do, except make money.<p>AI. AI to rank what&#x27;s important. To tell us what we should look at, watch. Buy. Adjusting news to either make us mad or placate us. Creating and reinforcing a bubble that absolutely <i>always</i> benefits someone else besides ourselves. We keep giving it subgoals, but it&#x27;ll just keep going around them to what we really want, <i>making money</i>, because that&#x27;s all we ever reward it for!<p>The fat ass webpages is just a symptom. The disease is that everyone is shoveling shit into your face just to make a buck. Everyone is trying to automate their crap as fast as they can, throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick. And they just. don&#x27;t. give. a shit.
评论 #17659775 未加载
RileyJames将近 7 年前
I use the “clean reader mode” (in safari, the small three stripe button next to the https lock in the address bar) very often to remove the clutter.<p>But this still means I downloaded all the unnecessary crap. Which is primarily annoying because of the delay in loading (crappy reception is the norm outside of Canadian cities).<p>Where as hacker news loads nearly instantly.<p>Is there a good alternative browser for iOS that avoids downloading JS, video, bloat?
ankurdhama将近 7 年前
Every web site (or app) wants to look &quot;cool&quot; and wants to differentiate themselves from others based on the look. This quest to look cool leads to all the animations and images etc which leads to the increase in download size. For the most part the reason for this quest to look cool is to grab user attention as much as possible so that they can do their actual business i.e ads.
azernik将近 7 年前
I&#x27;m going to have to disagree on the hostility to AMP.<p>Specifically with this paragraph:<p>&gt; It seems ridiculous to argue that AMP pages aren’t actually faster than their plain HTML counterparts because it’s so easy to see these pages are actually very fast. And there’s a good reason for that. It isn’t that there’s some sort of special sauce that is being done with the AMP format, or some brilliant piece of programmatic rearchitecting. No, it’s just because AMP restricts the kinds of elements that can be used on a page and severely limits the scripts that can be used. That means that webpages can’t be littered with arbitrary and numerous tracking and advertiser scripts, and that, of course, leads to a dramatically faster page.<p>&gt; ...[supporting evidence]<p>&gt; So: if you have a reasonably fast host and don’t litter your page with scripts, you, too, can have AMP-like results without creating a copy of your site dependent on Google and their slow crawl to gain control over the infrastructure of the web. But you can’t get into Google’s special promoted slots for AMP websites for reasons that are almost certainly driven by self-interest.<p>The point of AMP is <i>exactly</i> this restricted spec - it&#x27;s so Google can statically verify that your site follows their performance guidelines. You can write a really fast website if you want, but unless you&#x27;re willing to let Google make sure that you&#x27;re actually doing so they&#x27;re not going to take it on faith.
评论 #17660565 未加载
nabla9将近 7 年前
Here is non-bullshit cnn: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lite.cnn.io&#x2F;en" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lite.cnn.io&#x2F;en</a>
JoshMnem将近 7 年前
The Web was becoming unbearable until I started browsing with all CSS and JS off by default (using umatrix and 50,000 lines in my hosts file). It&#x27;s an amazing improvement. If I can&#x27;t read something, I enable some CSS and change the defaults for that site. Firefox reader mode helps. I also disable all CSS animation with Stylus.
StillBored将近 7 年前
Its not just transferred content is literally minutes of CPU time on some webpages just to run the javascript. This isn&#x27;t noticeable on a fast desktop, but try running some of these pages on atom class PCs or 5 year old phones (or for that matter put firefox on you phone and request the desktop site).
TekMol将近 7 年前
These days, when I visit a website I have not visited before, it feels like entering a war zone. Trying to extract some information while the enemy tries to kill me.<p>Enabling hostname after hostname in umatrix until the content is revealed. Hoping not to trigger too much user hostile crap along the way.
giardini将近 7 年前
Useful might be a browser that extracts most of the information content from web pages and discards most of the formatting information? The text-only browser Lynx comes to mind but I think its obsolete now and doesn&#x27;t show graphics, which sometimes are useful&#x2F;necessary.
评论 #17660160 未加载
waivek将近 7 年前
This static website seems to be down.<p>Archive link:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20180731143228&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pxlnv.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;bullshit-web&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20180731143228&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pxlnv.com&#x2F;...</a>
评论 #17655582 未加载
评论 #17655440 未加载
anonu将近 7 年前
I know of a few sites that have a light version. CNN for example: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lite.cnn.io&#x2F;en" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lite.cnn.io&#x2F;en</a><p>But I find that articles are so media heavy these days that removing videos or images detracts from the meaning
actionowl将近 7 年前
Webfonts need to die. I&#x27;m sick of loading a page, seeing the text for a moment, then it vanishes and I&#x27;m forced to wait, possibly for multiple seconds to see the text again in some pretty font the authors thought I cared about.
royroyroys将近 7 年前
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.textfiles.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.textfiles.com</a> This just reminded me of this site. The site is quite old now, but it used to be a great source of information.
modzu将近 7 年前
i duno, if a site is taking more than a second to load, goodbye! then again surely most of the hn crowd uses something akin to ublock. what of those other poor souls
nawitus将近 7 年前
Most websites are not optimized well because optimization costs money and software engineers are expensive. There probably is not a market failure here.
评论 #17655930 未加载
baud147258将近 7 年前
I appreciate that the author is doing what he&#x27;s preaching: his page is less than 10 KB, including ads and (self-hosted) analytics.
tenaciousDaniel将近 7 年前
I agree with the spirit of the article, in that we should be striving for a leaner web.<p>But last year I had to build an iOS SDK. As an SDK, we wanted it to be as small as humanly possible. It came out to around 12mb, which is obviously too large. So I tried removing literally everything but one file, and it came out to 10mb. So an iOS package, compiled, with only one class, comes out to 10 megabytes.<p>Yes, the web can improve, but in the grand scheme of things I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s as dire as some make it out to be.
评论 #17655490 未加载
codethief将近 7 年前
Very relevant: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;motherfuckingwebsite.com</a>
mirimir将近 7 年前
I entirely agree with the author&#x27;s points.<p>However, that CNN page[0] took just ~5 seconds to load. In fully readable form, with images. Through a three-VPN nested chain, with ~240 msec total latency. But then, I block ads, most scripts, and fonts.<p>0) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;07&#x2F;24&#x2F;politics&#x2F;michael-cohen-donald-trump-tape&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2018&#x2F;07&#x2F;24&#x2F;politics&#x2F;michael-cohen-donald...</a>
JulianMorrison将近 7 年前
This is why I need something like uMatrix to explicitly whitelist the text and leave the marketing wibble on the server.
jwhiz22将近 7 年前
I should go work for a company that cares about this stuff. Time to go back to adding Adobe Launch on a dozen sites.
cascom将近 7 年前
you only need to use a wifi connection on an airplane to see how painful things are - it&#x27;s like a time warp
评论 #17655544 未加载
评论 #17656175 未加载
评论 #17655351 未加载
评论 #17655783 未加载
agumonkey将近 7 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;MRnd81J" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;MRnd81J</a>
antuneza将近 7 年前
A good example of the Jevons Paradox
marataziat将近 7 年前
Is it a degradation of the web? Or it&#x27;s just revolution of our hardware and internet speed?
hutzlibu将近 7 年前
The main problem is and remains: money.<p>Professional newswebsites or alike don&#x27;t work for free.<p>But the majority of people is not willing to pay.<p>So ads and tracking and more ads and more ads. As this is the default buisness for &quot;free&quot; services. You pay with your data and attention, nothing new.<p>I would like this to change to the way Wikipedia works for example. No ads. Voluntarily payment. No paywall, free for everyone, even though only some people pay.<p>But micropayment services are not good enough, nor widespread and the average mindset is not there either.<p>But it could go there slowly, once people realize the true cost of all those &quot;free&quot; sercices and that paywalls are not nice either.<p>And besides, even though I agree to the sentiment of the aeticle, the comparison of plain text to an styled article with pictures ... is not really valid. I like sometimes reading plain text, but I enjoy a well done website more. With nice fonts, styles and pictures fitting to the flow of information and not as a distraction. I just don&#x27;t like advertisement in general, nor ads using my cpu to analyse me.
CIPHERSTONE将近 7 年前
This is one of the reasons I like Jekyll. No PHP, no bullshit. It&#x27;s fast, pre compiled pages. You can use web fonts if you like, or keep it all local. Speed usually takes a hit with websites when people try to monetize or add fancy features..
评论 #17656548 未加载
hackeraccount将近 7 年前
the site would have been nicer with a few images. Also the text layout was tedious - different fonts should&#x27;ve been used to convey metadata about the information in it.
icedchai将近 7 年前
That CNN article he mentions does take 30 seconds to finish loading... However, you can start reading the article in less than a second. Actual perceived load time is nearly instant.<p>For the actual end-user perspective, this article is mostly bullshit.
pacifika将近 7 年前
For this to change websites will have to stop chasing growth
pure-awesome将近 7 年前
If we have the Dweb, does that make this the Bweb?
mxuribe将近 7 年前
This is so monstrously correct! Kudos!
iamgopal将近 7 年前
Appstore based browser.
crasshopper将近 7 年前
browse in w3m. problem solved.
jstewartmobile将近 7 年前
One bright-side to the end of Moore&#x27;s law is that--until some new computational breakthrough comes along--we are at a web bullshit plateau.<p>Just think of the stuff they could pull off with ten more years of speed-doublings...
MrStonedOne将近 7 年前
I have a policy of disabling javascript on any article based website.<p>Its worked out well, most news sites load lightning fast, better viewing experience, no videos, the only downside is companies like the new york times that embed low res images then load full res in the background using javascript.<p>Here&#x27;s a funny concept, if disabling javascript makes your website better, you failed.
评论 #17659937 未加载
Alex3917将近 7 年前
Yes, we should definitely go back to the days where there was only one stylesheet per page and the web wasn&#x27;t accessible to those with visual impairments. Being blind is clearly just a lifestyle choice, and we shouldn&#x27;t be catering to the blind agenda. &#x2F;s<p>In all seriousness, most of the problem with bloat is on the mobile side. But in another ~1.25 years iPhones will have enough advanced LTE functionality that they will be basically the same speed as desktop computers. To whatever extent this is a real problem, it&#x27;s not going to be nearly as big of an issue after another two or three years.
评论 #17655960 未加载
评论 #17657180 未加载
评论 #17656793 未加载
notatoad将近 7 年前
Oh yay, another article complaining about all the bullshit modern websites want to load, and then also complaining about the best solution so far.<p>Yes, it sucks that amp requires loading a chunk of js from Google. But you know what? It actually makes things better. It solves a real problem, better than anything else is solving any similar problem. Nobody else is successfully convincing publishers to slim down their pages.<p>If you have a better plan, let&#x27;s hear it. But bitchy blog posts aren&#x27;t going to convince your local paper to improve their page speed.