1 and 2 are your own extrapolations and have nothing to do with the author's arguments. Please point out where the author makes these arguments in case I missed

1 and 2 are your own extrapolations and have nothing to do with the author's arguments. Please point out where the author makes these arguments in case I missed something. > Don't websites do a lot more than display text? Yes, evidently, but the author doesn't disagree with this. In fact, the entire premise of the article is that websites do a bunch of useless stuff that have nothing to do with delivering the content you are browsing them for. > Does HTML/markup not have a magnitude more value than raw text? As a universal rule there is of course no answer to this. There is a lot of absolutely worthless text on the web. Given the example, though, would you say that the markup is worth more than the text on a website whose primary attraction is written articles? Do you frequently visit websites just to admire their markup? > And how exactly is being inefficient with something that is abundant a tautologically bad thing? My time is limited. RAM is limited, CPU time is limited. My mobile data plan is limited. No one is happy with a page loading for 10 seconds for something which should take 1/10000 of that. That's not to say that this is tautologically a bad thing. The author explains why he thinks its bad and I think that people that value their time and resources should agree. If you think that an article loading for 10 seconds is a bad thing, it's bad that an article takes 10 seconds to load. It only becomes tautological once you apply your value system to it, if ever.