A comparison of CPU usage for idling popular webpages: https://ericra.com/writing/site_cpu.html
Regarding tracker domains on the New Yorker site: https://ericra.com/writing/tracker_new_yorker.html
413 karma · joined December 14, 2020
A comparison of CPU usage for idling popular webpages: https://ericra.com/writing/site_cpu.html
Regarding tracker domains on the New Yorker site: https://ericra.com/writing/tracker_new_yorker.html
Took me a bit to find it, so for anyone curious:
"All game assets found on the asset page are public domain CC0 licensed..."
There is a small FAQ if you click Support at the page bottom.
- Currently using Mistral 7B, but ability (by Mozilla) to swap the model used to another open source at any point.
- Hosted "by Mozilla" on their GCP instance.
- No obvious info about what it will cost them to run this since it is free to use.
- No training on user data.
Like others here, I'm very curious about the cost for Mozilla to run this service. It may be less than it initially appears given the 7B model they chose. I do wish they would focus their efforts on creating a very long-term endowment to pay devs for continued Firefox development in lieu of projects like this given the tenuous situation with their Google funding.
I'm not against this kind of thing in theory, but I hope it's being done in a cost-sustainable way.
What am I missing?
It's incredible that we are able to predict anything this far into the future, but the complexity seems like it lends itself to this kind of black box approach.
*This is all speculation, so I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable could tell if if I'm mistaken about these assumptions. It's an interesting topic.
I am running unlock origin and privacy badger, but they don't block much of anything there.
Btw, the link on the site to your GitHub repo has an extra dash, so it's leading to a 404.
I think it is a step too far to try and completely remove the step of actually visiting the website you get content from. This is the same thing Google is trying to do with their AI summarizer in search. Is the expected endgame of this that all useful websites just shut down because no one but bots visits them anymore? Even if those sites are user-funded and not reliant on ads, I find it hard to believe that many people would use AI summaries from the site then subsequently donate to financially support it.
I'm much more in favor of an approach that involves still visiting the actual website, but removes the content that the user does not want to see (ublock origin style).
I would suggest that once the browser extension exists, that it should transform the site "in-place" after visiting the site then pressing a button on the extension. And I could see that potentially having value (but I suspect this would take a lot of work to get right).
But please consider removing or changing that huge cookie banner on the main page. The amount of people that will simply choose to not interact with the site at all and X out immediately when seeing this might be higher than you think. That would be my first instinct.
I don't see how any reasonable person can celebrate this. Ask yourself who is benefiting most from this.
From a personal level, I'll just keep doing what I've always done. Help archive the things I can. Support and buy games from smaller devs or publishers who care about their games. And if you want to play something from a shitty AAA dev, nothing is stopping you from playing it anyway for free and just giving the money to your favorite charity instead. Consumers can have a lot of power if they choose to exercise it.
And the prospect of helping wounds heal with nano spaghetti is just cool
I was astounded by the amount of online gambling ads just literally pasted everywhere in Toronto. When I got YouTube ads, a huge percentage was for these. They were pasted over the whole body of streetcars and in transit stations throughout the city.
I don't know much about the current status in the U.S., but Ontario at least seems to be completely infected by gambling ads. They must be making insane amounts of money off exploiting people's gambling addictions, as well as creating new addictions daily.
1) mit license 2) using plausible instead of Google analytics. Practically speaking, uBO is going to block both by default, but for non-tech users this is great. 3) appreciate how the app respects your pc when the web app is running in the background. Very low footprint, no random CPU spikes or anything.
Wish you guys the best.
Anyway thanks for confirming.
I would normally think nothing of it, but the timing is conspicuous.
All that to mainly say..I appreciate you. It's one of my favorite projects, and I hope it keeps going strong indefinitely.
That being said, have you looked into something like this:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc...
(Disclaimer: have never used it, but it is a recommended extension). It may not meet your needs exactly since it would likely reload YouTube tabs when "undiscarded", but it might be worth a look.
I don't doubt that Facebook is a hellscape when actually in the web app, though.
I can't figure out why Google needs 15X more CPU indefinitely to display a white page with a search box, though (compared to a blank tab or simple site).
It surprised me quite a bit that so many resources were being used even though Firefox is not in focus. It makes sense from the browser perspective, though, since you don't want to completely stop a web app when tabbing away. Almost all CPU usage is the result of the active website's design.
It actually made it appreciative of how Firefox uses almost no CPU "passively", and I'm curious if the same thing would be true for Chrome. If you discount memory usage, the browser is surprisingly lightweight.
That being said, I'm glad both of them exist. They are interesting and feel much different to me than the literal translations.
I'm curious to play with it, but I'm always weary of signing into things with my Google / other accounts. Any plans to have the option to just make an account for your site (unless I'm missing it)?
Yes. Definitely. a Macbook Pro from 2013 has between 4-16GB of memory for one thing. The lowest spec phone in the article (Itel P32) has 1GB. A 2013 Macbook Pro has a 4th gen i5 processor. This phone has a MediaTek MT6580. It's not even in the same ballpark.
This is a bit of an extreme example, but the fact is that a very large number of people in many areas of the world use phones like these.