3 ms·
That's irrelevant. It's evident that, based on the ridiculous ads that some sites employ (auto-playing videos, those absurd scroll-by ads, etc.) that a lot of c
by ruswick 13y ago
That's irrelevant. It's evident that, based on the ridiculous ads that some sites employ (auto-playing videos, those absurd scroll-by ads, etc.) that a lot of companies are willing to drastically degrade their user experience to profit. Who's to say that companies won't take 10% of your CPU, or 20%? Let's universalize this practice. 1% CPU usage in each of 25 tabs begins to seriously degrade the experience and waste tremendous amounts of battery life.
In fact, I'd say that it's only financially tenable to hijack larger proportions of one's CPU. In order for access to 1% CPU usage of an entire site's user base to be economical compared to cloud computing options, this form of computation would either need to be ridiculously cheap or offer a massive user base with untold devices in the computing apparatus. It just doesn't make sense in most scenarios.