4 ms·
As a guy who does this blocking pretty ruthlessly (edit: inc. cookies), I'd like to understand why - I don't take offence at 'sneer', ISWYM but I'd like to unde
by throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
As a guy who does this blocking pretty ruthlessly (edit: inc. cookies), I'd like to understand why - I don't take offence at 'sneer', ISWYM but I'd like to understand the other side of the fence. TIA
- test1235 6y agosorry, 'sneer' is probably a bit strong - it's really just a lack of understanding on my part (of your side of the fence). I personally find browsing the internet without javascript or cookies enabled by default to be incredibly frustrating/inconvenient, but I'm sure it's all very subjective, down to your own personal browsing habits.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoThanks, and I understood the word was used for dramatic effect only. From my POV I too find it frustrating at times, but I'd say much of that comes quite unnecessarily not from JS use, but its abuse, eg. fails to display text unless JS is enabled. HTML is pretty good at that! There's no point me boring you with all the plusses of not using js (just ask) but speed... once a connection is made this http://antirez.com/latest/0 http://antirez.com/latest/0 is pretty much instantaneous. (thanks for your reply)
- jeromenerf 6y agoOvercoming frustration regarding ads, performance, nag screen, consent screens, poor design, various hijacking, tracking, clickbait and otherwise poor content is very personal in my experience. Some people even invent new protocols (Gemini comes to mind) to circumvent some of these frustrations.
- EvanAnderson 6y agoI found it frustrating and inconvenient at first. Now when I try to use a browser w/ default Javascript settings I find that I'm even more frustrated than when I started using NoScript. Websites left to their own devices to run arbitrary code on my machine are almost universally terrible to use. Local news sites are, by far, the worst. Lots of sites are terrible though.