3 ms·
Right, you definitely want something that is somewhat more adaptive if you want to solve this problem. Something to the effect of "as you use more resources you
by crdrost 8y ago
Right, you definitely want something that is somewhat more adaptive if you want to solve this problem. Something to the effect of "as you use more resources you slow down those resources."
What's more interesting to me is the broader economic question. Do users end up flocking to those browsers because it makes the browser more snappy for the other web sites and contexts? Or do they ditch them because they are necessarily slower than browsers that don't? Is this sort of decision, in other words, a sort of suicidal option for browsers?
- acqq 8y agoThe need for the user-friendly resource limitations in browsers is real. E.g. https://www.coindesk.com/firefox-announces-move-to-block-cryptomining-scripts https://www.coindesk.com/firefox-announces-move-to-block-cry... I know that solution presented in the article didn't work (neither in Firefox nor in Opera), and I know that from a person close to me who is not "technical" but wants to access some sites which slowed down the person's computer (the sites indeed managed to use exactly 100% of the CPU, that means, to use all cores at once, and to contact regularly some other sites with the "coin" in the name). Then, I've shown the person that the JavaScript can be blocked and that the computer is that way completely responsive... and you know the result: even the non-technical persons do what's rational, once they know that they have a choice.
- marcosdumay 8y agoWell, the browser publisher can simply make a setting or a fork (because that change looks large), and see what wins.