4 ms·

Well the site doesn't even work if you have NoScript, which is the bare minimum to have...

by necessity 10y ago

baenation 10y ago
sub 2 this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNET_reE6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNET_reE6o
hrrsn 10y ago
I wouldn't consider it bare minimum. Most of the web is broken with NoScript installed.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Most of the web is broken with NoScript installed. More accurately, most of the web is broken, whether or not NoScript is installed — it's just that you can see that it's broken when NoScript is installed.
  - cmkrnl 10y ago
    <3
  - tunap 10y ago
    I consider it a feature, more times than not. Google's anticipating my search, flash heavy eye-candy/media and numerous unaffiliated servers baked into web pages all clog my 1mb connection and make my browser run like molasses. How many Targetimg cdn's does it take to display a single product page? Last I checked it was 4, plus a half-dozen or more other presumably ad servers. I choose not to use many big retailers' sites b/c of it. Again, for me, that is a feature to keep them at bay from anything beyond our potential transactional relationship.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  That part of the web hates the user so win win.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  There is a difference though. I can selectively turn things on / off. If I have to turn on >5 websites to see the content it suddenly has less value and I shrug and close
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    I really can't understand the people that browse the internet without JS. Like what's the point? JS is part of the web, deal with it.
    - tyfon 10y ago
      I am dealing with it by not visiting homepages that rely on JavaScript. The point is I do not want a bunch of insecure code running on my computer just to read some text, which is what I usually do in a browser.
      - truth_sentinell 10y ago
        Maybe all you visit is blogs. But there are lots of websites that rely on JS in order to express their intentions. It's like watching a movie with the mute on because the english accents bothers you -and without the possibility of subtitles-.
        xkcd-sucks 10y ago
        It seems that for most sites that rely on JS, about ten percent is actually necessary and the remainder is useless advertising/tracking/analytics/fonts/social media buttons. NoScript, uMatrix etc. are really helpful here.
    - anc84 10y ago
      Boring old argument again and again. 99% of the distraction, tracking, annoyance of the modern web are due to JS. Blocking it will not "break most sites", you can usually read just fine. Selectively allowing JS per domain works great. Try it, you might be surprised and not talk down to us anymore.

Well the site doesn't even work if you have NoScript, which is the bare minimum to have...

baenation 10y ago

sub 2 this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNET_reE6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LNET_reE6o

hrrsn 10y ago

I wouldn't consider it bare minimum. Most of the web is broken with NoScript installed.

wtbob 10y ago
> Most of the web is broken with NoScript installed. More accurately, most of the web is broken, whether or not NoScript is installed — it's just that you can see that it's broken when NoScript is installed.
- cmkrnl 10y ago
  <3
- tunap 10y ago
  I consider it a feature, more times than not. Google's anticipating my search, flash heavy eye-candy/media and numerous unaffiliated servers baked into web pages all clog my 1mb connection and make my browser run like molasses. How many Targetimg cdn's does it take to display a single product page? Last I checked it was 4, plus a half-dozen or more other presumably ad servers. I choose not to use many big retailers' sites b/c of it. Again, for me, that is a feature to keep them at bay from anything beyond our potential transactional relationship.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
That part of the web hates the user so win win.
SixSigma 10y ago
There is a difference though. I can selectively turn things on / off. If I have to turn on >5 websites to see the content it suddenly has less value and I shrug and close
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  I really can't understand the people that browse the internet without JS. Like what's the point? JS is part of the web, deal with it.
  - tyfon 10y ago
    I am dealing with it by not visiting homepages that rely on JavaScript. The point is I do not want a bunch of insecure code running on my computer just to read some text, which is what I usually do in a browser.
    - truth_sentinell 10y ago
      Maybe all you visit is blogs. But there are lots of websites that rely on JS in order to express their intentions. It's like watching a movie with the mute on because the english accents bothers you -and without the possibility of subtitles-.
      - xkcd-sucks 10y ago
        It seems that for most sites that rely on JS, about ten percent is actually necessary and the remainder is useless advertising/tracking/analytics/fonts/social media buttons. NoScript, uMatrix etc. are really helpful here.
  - anc84 10y ago
    Boring old argument again and again. 99% of the distraction, tracking, annoyance of the modern web are due to JS. Blocking it will not "break most sites", you can usually read just fine. Selectively allowing JS per domain works great. Try it, you might be surprised and not talk down to us anymore.