4 ms·
> Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the client side, which should be utilised. It would be one thing if this was a matter of consent. It isn't. It use
by jxf 4y ago
> Plus, we have a lot of processing power on the client side, which should be utilised.
It would be one thing if this was a matter of consent. It isn't. It uses your resources without your permission. Leaving JS on is not permission to consume as much CPU as you want (otherwise, every website would also run a crypto miner).
> If a site uses it badly, just don't go to that site.
This sort of blitheness is very surprising to me. What if we're talking about a passport site, or an unemployment benefits site, and so on? Why is the onus on the user and not the developer?
- ornornor 4y agoWell said.
- googlryas 4y agoThere needs to be an API in the client for specifying how much CPU can be used. Clearly things like crypto mining in the bg are considered abuse but what about just poorly written js? Clients should be able to police the code they execute.
- osrec 4y agoThe choice is with the user. The onus is on the developer to build something good and efficient, otherwise people will not use the product. If the user is forced to use a terrible government website (as we all are from time to time), removing JS will fix absolutely nothing there. If anything, it might make things worse, as there will be a bunch of things you simply cannot do without JS (e.g cropping a photo to upload to a passport site - how would you even draw out the crop region without JS?!) JS is not the problem. Crappy developers and corrupt officials who award key contracts to crappy developers are the problem.
- speed_spread 4y agoIt's the ads that are the problem. A crappy website is sad but fixable. At least it provides some value. Ads are are a nuisance race to the bottom.