4 ms·

the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record perf timeline and network log. incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests,

the irony on full display (at the linked article) in chrome devtools / record perf timeline and network log. incognito: 4.4mb, 7000ms scripting, 365 requests, onload: 7600ms with uMatrix (no third party shit): 612kb, 190ms of scripting, 56 requests, onload: 500ms this is on a 300MBit connection

PhantomGremlin 9y ago
The linked article is highly readable and loads very quickly simply by disabling all JavaScript on the site. Which I do by default. Thank you NoScript.
- freedomben 9y ago
  This is the only way to live. Been doing it for years and while I do end up whitelisting a lot (especially on a new browser) it is so much easier and less annoying than dealing with the ads and crappy scripts.
ktta 9y ago
AMP versions of some websites are better https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/27/thousands-of-major-sites-are-taking-silent-anti-ad-blocking-measures/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/27/thousands-of-major-sites-a...
- pmlnr 9y ago
  True. However, I refuse to use AMP as long as it's a google vendor lock in. Also not the solution; if they can provide an amp version without all the tracking and ad JS they could just as simply provide an actual, working website as well.
true_religion 9y ago
The article took 7.8 seconds to "fully" load for me, however the text was readable in under 300ms. Loading ads of screen doesn't bother me. Also, I'm not sure where the irony is here. They're talking about anti-adblocking, so it's hardly ironic that they use advertisements themselves.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  > Loading ads of screen doesn't bother me. congratulations! - you now have 70 new tracking cookies - a degraded battery - have exceeded your bandwidth allotment - probably some malware payload that exfiltrated your contacts via a 0-day XSS - almost certainly slower UI/scrolling performance > Also, I'm not sure where the irony is here. the irony of degrading people's experience [via popups, countdowns, etc] who refuse to load slow and annoying ads.

PhantomGremlin 9y ago

The linked article is highly readable and loads very quickly simply by disabling all JavaScript on the site. Which I do by default. Thank you NoScript.

freedomben 9y ago
This is the only way to live. Been doing it for years and while I do end up whitelisting a lot (especially on a new browser) it is so much easier and less annoying than dealing with the ads and crappy scripts.

ktta 9y ago

AMP versions of some websites are better https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/27/thousands-of-major-sites-are-taking-silent-anti-ad-blocking-measures/amp/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/27/thousands-of-major-sites-a...

pmlnr 9y ago
True. However, I refuse to use AMP as long as it's a google vendor lock in. Also not the solution; if they can provide an amp version without all the tracking and ad JS they could just as simply provide an actual, working website as well.

true_religion 9y ago

The article took 7.8 seconds to "fully" load for me, however the text was readable in under 300ms. Loading ads of screen doesn't bother me. Also, I'm not sure where the irony is here. They're talking about anti-adblocking, so it's hardly ironic that they use advertisements themselves.

leeoniya 9y ago
> Loading ads of screen doesn't bother me. congratulations! - you now have 70 new tracking cookies - a degraded battery - have exceeded your bandwidth allotment - probably some malware payload that exfiltrated your contacts via a 0-day XSS - almost certainly slower UI/scrolling performance > Also, I'm not sure where the irony is here. the irony of degrading people's experience [via popups, countdowns, etc] who refuse to load slow and annoying ads.