4 ms·
If you use noscript, the images of the proof will not appear making it nearly impossible to follow.
by thethirdone 9y ago
If you use noscript, the images of the proof will not appear making it nearly impossible to follow.
- tyingq 9y agoSympathetic, but noscript compatibility has been out the window for a decade at least. You can't reliably book travel, interact socially, read email, buy basic retail items, etc, without being extremely selective about providers. I'm with you philosophically, but that ship sailed long ago.
- S4M 9y agoThe thing is that there is no particular reason for non animated images to require javascript.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- philtar 9y agoLazy loading
- subroutine 9y agoIs there a browser check that can be performed so a fallback can be implemented in the case of noscript?
- acqq 9y agoThis tag works on all browsers, no nned for a browser check: https://www.techonthenet.com/html/elements/noscript_tag.php https://www.techonthenet.com/html/elements/noscript_tag.php
- deathanatos 9y agoThey're <10KiB a piece, most of them. If the New Yorker would use the proper format of SVG here (or even PNG — the diagrams are all JPEGs), they would likely compress even better; most of them also include a ton of whitespace either side of the actual image. Testing one of them, the size falls by ~28% if you correct for all this. On mobile, where my connection is less reliable, I also have a strong distaste for lazy loading: it squanders all the time available from when I started reading until now. Then, when the image is finally in view, then we start the long haul of fetching it, and risk that I've again lost good connectivity.
- NamTaf 9y agoConversely, I like that it doesn't waste my data if I only get 1/2 way through an article and have to close it because I'm out and about and the world around me may interrupt me reading something on my phone.
- madez 9y agoWell, I'm rather extremely selective instead of doing something I consider wrong.
- tyingq 9y agoSure. That path, though, is degrading over time. Surfing the web without JS is becoming less, not more, achievable.
- acqq 9y agoIt's very easy to have JS only turned on only on a few selected sites. Interested parties should check uMatrix. It tells me that the page in question otherwise executes the scripts from the following sites: https://cdn.accelerator.arsdev.net/ https://player.cnevids.com/ https://c.amazon-adsystem.com/ https://segment-data.zqtk.net/ https://js-sec.indexww.com/ https://cdn.yldbt.com/ https://www.googletagservices.com/ https://cdn.optimizely.com/ https://assets.adobedtm.com/ https://d1z2jf7jlzjs58.cloudfront.net/ https://pixel.condenastdigital.com/ https://tag.bounceexchange.com/ https://cdn.optimizely.com/ https://assets.adobedtm.com/ There are still the trackers that work with the other methods that it can't prevent. But at least one still can be selective with the JS.
- jwilk 9y agoArchived copy that doesn't require JS: https://archive.fo/PkO3L https://archive.fo/PkO3L
- madez 9y agoWelcome to nginx! If you see this page, the nginx web server is successfully installed and working. Further configuration is required. For online documentation and support please refer to nginx.org. Commercial support is available at nginx.com. Thank you for using nginx.
- pharrington 9y agoAssuming your comment isn't in error, that message is being generated by a proxy somewhere between you and archive.fo.