4 ms·

Just use 1Blocker. It works fine. Extensions are battery killers.

• lightedman 7y ago
  "Extensions are battery killers." ANY processing is a battery killer. It's as if people forgot every single thing done on a computer system STILL REQUIRES ENERGY TO DO.
• neurobashing 7y ago
  Not just "just use 1Blocker", but isn't the mechanism 1Blocker uses functionally equivalent to the "old" mechanism? Whereas Chrome just turned it off without offering a different route to the same functionality?
  • danpalmer 7y ago
    To my knowledge, 1Blocker uses the iOS/macOS content blocking APIs, which essentially allow an app to provide lists of content to block to the system, which pre-computes a fast/efficient ruleset for use while browsing. This results in lower energy usage, faster browsing, and more privacy during browsing. Chrome does not to my knowledge provide an API like this, and extensions are still roughly a JS bundle that defines blocking rules at runtime, slowly, using more energy, and potentially having access to your browser history while it does it.
  • vatueil 7y ago
    The posted article is all about how the changes Apple made to Safari mirror the proposed changes to Chrome. Safari content blockers such as 1Blocker are pretty much exactly how Chrome adblockers will work in the future. Chrome has not changed how extensions work yet. That's all in the future. Currently, nothing has been turned off and the "old" mechanism still works. Eventually that will change, just as Safari has already done.
• quotemstr 7y ago
  "Extensions are battery killers" is simplistic, and, well, wrong. Like any program, efficiency depends on what a program actually does. Some extensions use a lot of power. Others don't. The anti-extension animus on this thread is weird.