4 ms·
In the time since I read the linked article, I opened the LA Times site and navigated to a story, opened my network console, and read some comments on HN about
by uxp 10y ago
In the time since I read the linked article, I opened the LA Times site and navigated to a story, opened my network console, and read some comments on HN about the article.
Safari says it's been about 12 minutes. It's requested over 1000 resources (it pegged 999+ at ~2 minutes). It's downloaded 88.4 Megabytes of data. It appears to be continually firing pixels from a multitude of places (openX and doubleclick are common). It's also downloading a number of different videos. The article I opened does not have any videos related to it's content. This article is open in an unfocused window; I have not fired any scroll, click, or touch events natively after the few seconds I opened the link, scrolled a bit, then came back to HN.
88.4 megabytes in a few minutes. I remember when my modem couldn't download more than a couple megs in dozens of minutes, and I'm a shitty stupid millennial, not some graybeard. Maybe it could hit a gig, or 14, in a day, but the point really remains set: the LATimes site is absurd.
- NelsonMinar 10y agoYour measure pencils out to 10 GB/day. Someone else here found 7 GB/day. Perhaps it's a Safari vs Chrome thing. (In case the sarcasm is not clear: the problem is that it's anywhere over 0.01 GB.)
- asdfaoeu 10y agoI only got to 13.6mb/10mins before the page crashes. So I guess that counts as a safeguard. http://i.imgur.com/PIcpEPJ.png http://i.imgur.com/PIcpEPJ.png