ce (12023-06-08):
> What about ads for car insurance?
Yes, what about them? What do you think they have special?
(Hint: an ad for a car insurance is not to convince you to subscribe to
any insurance rather than none, it is to convince you to subscribe to
this insurance rather than any other.)
On 6/8/23 01:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
Ad industry /is/ about convincing people to do things which
potentially damage them. So it is deceptive by design. Read up on Big
Tobacco for a good example.
What about ads for car insurance?
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 12:45:38AM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:05:18 +0200
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> The only case I can see in which such offloading would
> >> be unethical is where the website
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:05:18 +0200
wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> The only case I can see in which such offloading would
>> be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in
>> deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not [...]
>
>A
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
[...]
> The only case I can see in which such offloading would
> be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in
> deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not [...]
A pretty strong assumption given that the crushing
On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:17:47 +0800
Bret Busby wrote:
> On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than
> > browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications.
> >
>
> That was the point that I was making
> With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of
> a web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the
> client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it increases network
> usage. Isn't it unethical to also "steal" more bandwidth than
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 10:34:04AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 04:30:46PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > So the practice is that the whole internet dumps the whole framework
> > schtack [2] on you.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly
We need better
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 04:30:46PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> So the practice is that the whole internet dumps the whole framework
> schtack [2] on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 08:17:43AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
[...]
> With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of a
> web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the
> client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it
Max Nikulin wrote:
...
> I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than
> browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications.
no kidding, rather poor design in many web sites these
days, loading and reloading images, large images for
little
On 04/06/2023 05:17, Bret Busby wrote:
On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote:
I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than
browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications.
That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted
On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote:
I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than
browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications.
That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted response
indicated, criticised Firefox
On 03/06/2023 18:37, The Wanderer wrote:
On 2023-06-03 at 07:18, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 03/06/2023 17:40, The Wanderer wrote:
Hey, now. I once had a Firefox session (with "restore tabs from
previous session" enabled, and about six-to-eight windows) with
5,190 open tabs, and that computer only
On 2023-06-03 at 07:18, Max Nikulin wrote:
> On 03/06/2023 17:40, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> Hey, now. I once had a Firefox session (with "restore tabs from
>> previous session" enabled, and about six-to-eight windows) with
>> 5,190 open tabs, and that computer only had 24GB of RAM.
>
> Modern
On 03/06/2023 17:40, The Wanderer wrote:
Hey, now. I once had a Firefox session (with "restore tabs from previous
session" enabled, and about six-to-eight windows) with 5,190 open tabs,
and that computer only had 24GB of RAM.
Modern browsers supports "unloaded" tabs, so most of your tabs
16 matches
Mail list logo
