Again. Please re-read the original article. Firefox is fixing their inefficient memory management w.r.t. CSS with a later version. That fixed version reduces th

Again. Please re-read the original article. Firefox is fixing their inefficient memory management w.r.t. CSS with a later version. That fixed version reduces the memory usage to 450Mb with the same Adblock code. So it wasn't exactly Adblock's fault - it was Mozilla's code that was grossly inefficient and they owned it and fixed it. Same way, as it stands today, with uBlock FF 38.x loads that site in about 750Mb whereas Chrome with uBlock uses 1.6GB. Unless you happen to know that uBlock is doing something crazy on Chrome but not on FF, and that Chrome code is 100% without inefficiencies - don't state it like a fact that it is uBlock that is the issue. uBlock is manipulating the DOM - Chrome is using memory for those elements, it is entirely up to them to optimize it if uBlock can work fine with less memory on Firefox while essentially doing the same thing. Chrome isn't exactly known for being thrifty on memory and battery btw.