2 ms·

This is desktop, not mobile, but: I turned off ad blockers, scrolled to the bottom, and waited. 60.9MB transferred https://imgur.com/a/ftGkR3m https://imgur.co

This is desktop, not mobile, but: I turned off ad blockers, scrolled to the bottom, and waited. 60.9MB transferred https://imgur.com/a/ftGkR3m https://imgur.com/a/ftGkR3m. They are in fact worse than the rest of them. It is still going up as the ads rotate. I count 11 ad placements.

ndriscoll 2y ago
Saving the article text locally and gzipping it (which lacks html tags, but should be approximately right), it's ~1.5 kB. So 2kB for the article and say 5kB for a cacheable site-wide template is what things "ought" to be. My 1GB mobile data plan should be enough to read at least 10s of thousands of pages in a month. Instead at 60MB, I could read... 16. Naturally I never use mobile data, and my only real use for a phone plan at all at this point is being forced to have SMS for banking.
- benreesman 2y ago
  I’m due for a new phone and I’m strongly considering going to a dumb phone with a tablet around the house for browsing. I can carry a Kindle or something to kill time waiting for a train.
  - dleeftink 2y ago
    Question for the thread*: are we at a point where we build apps that chew through ad/user data, but put ourselves in a position to not have our data chewed on? *Mostly asking because I have come across this sentiment before, not because I think op(s) are engaged in this
    - fn-mote 2y ago
      All of the people posting about adblockers have certainly done something about their rate of data use. Is the question “how many of you Adblock users also work in advertising tech?”
  - jkestner 2y ago
    I'd do that but a smartphone is unfortunately a great pocket camera. The sweet spot for me would be something like a modern version of the Nokia N95 — great camera, unrestricted OS that lets me write apps in Python or whatever, and terrible web browsing experience.
cjs_ac 2y ago
> 60.9MB transferred Opening this page 6 and a half times would exceed the monthly download limit on the first broadband internet plan my family had about twenty years ago in Australia.

ndriscoll 2y ago

Saving the article text locally and gzipping it (which lacks html tags, but should be approximately right), it's ~1.5 kB. So 2kB for the article and say 5kB for a cacheable site-wide template is what things "ought" to be. My 1GB mobile data plan should be enough to read at least 10s of thousands of pages in a month. Instead at 60MB, I could read... 16. Naturally I never use mobile data, and my only real use for a phone plan at all at this point is being forced to have SMS for banking.

benreesman 2y ago
I’m due for a new phone and I’m strongly considering going to a dumb phone with a tablet around the house for browsing. I can carry a Kindle or something to kill time waiting for a train.
- dleeftink 2y ago
  Question for the thread*: are we at a point where we build apps that chew through ad/user data, but put ourselves in a position to not have our data chewed on? *Mostly asking because I have come across this sentiment before, not because I think op(s) are engaged in this
  - fn-mote 2y ago
    All of the people posting about adblockers have certainly done something about their rate of data use. Is the question “how many of you Adblock users also work in advertising tech?”
- jkestner 2y ago
  I'd do that but a smartphone is unfortunately a great pocket camera. The sweet spot for me would be something like a modern version of the Nokia N95 — great camera, unrestricted OS that lets me write apps in Python or whatever, and terrible web browsing experience.

cjs_ac 2y ago

> 60.9MB transferred Opening this page 6 and a half times would exceed the monthly download limit on the first broadband internet plan my family had about twenty years ago in Australia.