5 ms·

Page size: 22MB Requests: 148 It choked my Mac mini. Tens of thousands of CPU's around the world are roaring to this web page, causing enough global warming t

Page size: 22MB Requests: 148 It choked my Mac mini. Tens of thousands of CPU's around the world are roaring to this web page, causing enough global warming to melt buckets of ice. BUCKETS, I TELL YOU!!

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
eksith 13y ago
I'm on a dinky little Sony Vaio 11" and no-script on FF has been my friend. Best thing is that it charges pretty well on a car or solar panel or bicycle + dyno or what have you. It's ultimately disadvantageous to magazine publishers in particular (since they seem to serve the most bloat) when people will eventually block scripts en masse. Edit: Forgot to mention, I also use this http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm Although I changed 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0 and it seemed to have no ill effects.
kzrdude 13y ago
Props to them for capturing the feeling of a beautiful magazine on a web page. I wish my favourite newspaper websites would pull that off in their larger pieces.
- kaiwen1 13y ago
  Agreed. This is one of the best ports of magazine feel while leveraging the web that I've seen.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  It's terrible. Scrolling is super slow and jerky, and I'm afraid to zoom/resize to a comfortable reading view because of it. I don't see why this is necessary for a "beautiful magazine feeling"? Couldn't they just used big pictures, a nice font and great layout, but in plain HTML+CSS it would give me the exact same experience, except of course 1000x better. A while ago I came across a similar article (maybe it was Rollingstone as well) about Daft Punk's new album. I really wanted to read about Daft Punk so I suffered through that experience. The photos were very pretty but still I really wonder what sort of computer such pages are optimized for? My laptop is not super powerful but also just 1.5 years old. I used the latest Chrome on Win7, that should put me in their target audience for optimizing website experience right? (of course that's assuming my experience is not the intended one and it's more pleasant for people on more powerful computers?) But for this article, from the title I pretty much just wanted to know what's up with the ice in Greenland and what this means. So I didn't persevere and instead came looking to the comments here to see if the article is even any good.
  - chunkyslink 13y ago
    Really, It was super slick on my Retina Mac Pro with 8 gig of RAM. :)
- Amadou 13y ago
  Even bigger props to them for handling graceful degradation gracefully. Without javascript it loads super quick and it looks pretty good - some of the images are poorly sized and placed, but the article text is still well formatted and readable. Ir certainly could look better, but it also could look a whole lot worse.
plainOldText 13y ago
Not if the message (and all the graphics) reaches people who will understand that our climate undergoes significant changes. Having a couple of buckets of ice melted today is OK, if it will contribute to fewer melted buckets of ice tomorrow.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

eksith 13y ago

I'm on a dinky little Sony Vaio 11" and no-script on FF has been my friend. Best thing is that it charges pretty well on a car or solar panel or bicycle + dyno or what have you. It's ultimately disadvantageous to magazine publishers in particular (since they seem to serve the most bloat) when people will eventually block scripts en masse. Edit: Forgot to mention, I also use this http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm Although I changed 127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0 and it seemed to have no ill effects.

kzrdude 13y ago

Props to them for capturing the feeling of a beautiful magazine on a web page. I wish my favourite newspaper websites would pull that off in their larger pieces.

kaiwen1 13y ago
Agreed. This is one of the best ports of magazine feel while leveraging the web that I've seen.
tripzilch 13y ago
It's terrible. Scrolling is super slow and jerky, and I'm afraid to zoom/resize to a comfortable reading view because of it. I don't see why this is necessary for a "beautiful magazine feeling"? Couldn't they just used big pictures, a nice font and great layout, but in plain HTML+CSS it would give me the exact same experience, except of course 1000x better. A while ago I came across a similar article (maybe it was Rollingstone as well) about Daft Punk's new album. I really wanted to read about Daft Punk so I suffered through that experience. The photos were very pretty but still I really wonder what sort of computer such pages are optimized for? My laptop is not super powerful but also just 1.5 years old. I used the latest Chrome on Win7, that should put me in their target audience for optimizing website experience right? (of course that's assuming my experience is not the intended one and it's more pleasant for people on more powerful computers?) But for this article, from the title I pretty much just wanted to know what's up with the ice in Greenland and what this means. So I didn't persevere and instead came looking to the comments here to see if the article is even any good.
- chunkyslink 13y ago
  Really, It was super slick on my Retina Mac Pro with 8 gig of RAM. :)
Amadou 13y ago
Even bigger props to them for handling graceful degradation gracefully. Without javascript it loads super quick and it looks pretty good - some of the images are poorly sized and placed, but the article text is still well formatted and readable. Ir certainly could look better, but it also could look a whole lot worse.

plainOldText 13y ago

Not if the message (and all the graphics) reaches people who will understand that our climate undergoes significant changes. Having a couple of buckets of ice melted today is OK, if it will contribute to fewer melted buckets of ice tomorrow.