>It's significantly better. Its not better if the only thing that keeps it afloat is the fact that broadband is ubiquitous by now (and that isn't even true for

>It's significantly better. Its not better if the only thing that keeps it afloat is the fact that broadband is ubiquitous by now (and that isn't even true for most of the world), and hardware got alot better. The main difference is that many people started using the web after the gamification and bloatation took over, so they are used to adbanners flying in, random videos which start playing, and phone batteries going flat just by looking at a news article. > It's just that there's more work to be done. But is that extra work necessary? Look at this threads page on HN. It loads 402 kb worth of content: the html, a tiny amount of JS that isn't even minified (and doesn't have to because its so slim), a small css file, 3 small gifs and the favicon. That's it. That's all the network-load required to display a usable, information-dense, not hard to look at and performant experience.