You can wax poetic all you want about anecdotal values differences between the first and third worlds, but speaking in terms of actual practical impact: what you are saying is simply not true. Greenhouse gas emissions scale super-linearly with income: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-world-s-top-1-of-emitte...
OP's point was that the global rich (most US citizens included) have lifestyles and patterns of consumption which produce an outsized amount of greenhouse gasses, and any attempts to alter those behaviors are routinely met with anger and political backlash
Yeah and my point is that these studies look at energy consumption they don’t take into account things like burning yard waste or plastic garbage into their co2 consumption which is often done daily to keep mosquitoes away and from laziness. Nor does it look at air pollution nor waterways pollution. So it’s a useless metric that doesn’t even have accurate data or tell the real story.
What will we do when these societies who give no fucks about the environment (compared to the west) get wealthier?
I don't think proposing cutting CO2 emissions is "white guilt" -- I probably missed something, I'm not sure how race entered it. (and I don't mean that snarky! I probably missed it :) )
I'm also unsure if "White guilt" is a good descriptor for the West enforcing emission cuts by force on not-West: that sounds like aggression as opposed to an expression of guilt.
The fun/exciting part: a total mind-bender on this is not-West countries are installing renewables at scale without incentives or "[any color] guilt", solar is cheaper than any other supply you can think of.
Then we can start talking about "solar isn't enough because unreliable", true.
Then maybe we start talking about how it's racist to prevent people from having unreliable electricity, true, but rest-assured, the idea of enforcing cuts on other nations isn't on the table.
To avoid the tarpit of moralizing, I try to stay focused on saying "they're installing solar panels and it's cool if they gotta do coal/tires/etc. while we 10x batteries again like we did last decade" --- this also has the benefit of matching the uncoordinated reality as it stands
Your link has the Chinese top decile with higher emissions than the EU top decile, so your "what you are saying is simply not true" seems incorrect, their central point of value differences and higher pollution in third world countries seems to stand up well.
This doesn't take into account that countries like the US have already cut emissions and emissions have been declining for years. Meanwhile, China has much greater total emissions than the US does and emissions in China are increasing per year continuously as they are in India. Total global emissions are what matters for the climate. Although reducing waste and being more efficient are always helpful, fixating on lifestyles of people like US citizens is not particularly useful.
Source? (AFAIK it does, and it'd be very unexpected for it not to. The rest of the comment is unclear to me. I may be reading it as a strawman instead of a steelman -- would a reply like: 'just because our derivative is negative doesn't mean on a per-capita basis we're less' be accurate? I'm sure I missed something)
It doesn't take into account trends that already exist. In the next decade small reductions to emissions in US transportation per year will be meaningless. Also reducing agricultural emissions which are only 10% of CO2 emissions in the US will have little affect on total global emissions. I'm not sure why there is so much hand waving about the CO2 emissions of China alone.
This being US / 1st world emissions are decreasing? Thank you for looking that up etc., I appreciate it -- I did know that, and seriously, thank you for taking the time to source it: I'm only saying I knew so you can rest assured at least one other person is up on data. These are strange times and it's hard to get a read on if facts are common knowledge or not, and our estimate of that can cause intense feelings.
Putting my comment more simply and extending it so it doesn't feel like I'm passive-aggressively quoting my comment back at you:
I'm curious why we think the per-capita emissions data "isn't accounting for it decreasing"
What I am taking issue with is the assertion from the other poster that "Greenhouse gasses scales super-linearly with income" which links to a page. That page looks at one year, 2021, and makes assertions that don't account for annual trends like the decrease in emissions the US has been experiencing for years and will continue to experience. The US _IS_ reducing emissions. It also doesn't take into account the large expected increases over just say the next decade in countries like China.
Total global emissions are an important factor to consider for the global climate and focusing only on reducing emissions of the US will be meaningless because total global emissions will still continue to go up.
the reason they are named differently and are notated differently is that they serve different functions. they're more or less homophones.
or, perhaps to keep it within the artistic sphere, they're like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion and other "same color" illusions -- they are technically the same, but taken in context they signify different things.
you would build different chords around them, you would play different melodies around them, etc. in other words, it's not just when writing them out in english that we treat those two intervals differently -- we treat them differently while using them during music
you are, of course, correct that many very competent musicians would not correctly name this distinction using the official theory terms. but that doesn't mean that they don't understand the distinction when using them in musical contexts, or that the distinction is not meaningful. plenty of professionals are experts at something without being able to describe it perfectly in words
The tradition of using shift registers for automated music generation very much lives on! These days they are typically called "Turing Machines" (I know, kinda of confusing for us CS folks), due to the influence of a popular version which came out in 2012: https://www.musicthing.co.uk/Turing-Machine/
The most common use of this recirculating shift register technology are those little flickering LED lamps used to simulate candles. That's how the pseudorandom flicker is generated.[1]
My read of the article was quite different. Namely, "Imagine you had to shave a yak. There would be a lot of things involved in getting that done, many of which you don't know ahead of time."
Ultimately the same underlying meaning, but quite a different illustrative scenario.
Yes I've heard this too, but I've also heard both.
While writing this I found a lot of opposing definitions (as mentioned with bus factor). I've also heard "Don't shave the yak!" as part of the definition you gave for yak shaving.
Thanks for the feedback! I'll incorporate this too to make it more complete.
Invests it, and runs the university on the returns. Assuming a 4% yearly rate of return, then that's around $1.5B a year in money available for operating expenses. As a point of comparison, Facebook spends ~10x that (~$15B), Uber spends ~2x that ($3B), etc. Harvard obviously has additional revenue streams, but there you go.
Comparing tech firm operational costs to universities is a bit ridiculous -- Facebook runs multiple private datacenters globally. Most universities get by with a dozen clustered on campus serving administrative, educational and research objectives. It also serves more or less the planet, whereas the Harvards and Berkeleys of the world exist to serve a few dozen thousand at at time.
$1.5B pays for quite a bit of research. Or, more accurately, a lot of real estate speculation for the board of trustees to play.
Isn't most research funded out of external industry and government grants that also pay into the university (ie grant overhead)?
Given that even most top research universities get by on a fraction of Harvard's endowment—while running largely comparable research programs—it's definitely possible to do without. Harvard obviously does strong research, but not that much stronger than the rest of the top 100 (top 200? 500?) universities. Certainly not 10–50× stronger!
My impression is that what really makes Harvard and other highly endowed universities stand out is their really aggressive financial aid. That's probably one of the things that's almost entirely funded out of the endowment as opposed to external sources or tuition and fees.
I figured that, but I wanted to give the chance at clarification, because we were mainly discussing operational expenses, and there's no way data centers even clears 1% of the cost of running Harvard
> But I remember the times when we had the amazing Opera browser. In Opera, I could have a hundred open tabs, and it didn’t care, it worked incredibly fast on the hardware of its era, useless today. You may ask: why would a sane person want a hundred open tabs, how would you even manage that? Well, Opera has had a great UI for that, which nobody has ever matched. Working with a hundred tabs in Opera was much easier back then than working with ten in today’s Safari or Chrome. But that’s a whole different story. What would you do today if you opened a link and saw a long article which you don’t have time to read right now, but want to read later? You would save a link and close the tab. But when your browser is fast, you just don’t tend to close tabs which you haven’t dealt with. In Opera, I would let tabs stay open for months without having any impact on my machine’s performance.
This is exactly how I'm using Firefox, right now -- 273 tabs open. It's sitting at ~5% of CPU and 450MB of RAM. And switching tabs is instantaneous. And it doesn't reload every page when I quit and restart my browser -- it only loads a tab when I click into that tab. And it has tab groups so that my current group has only about 8 tabs in it, and the other groups are sorted by topic. And on and on.
I find it frustrating when people post these articles as if everyone has this problem, and don't provide enough details as to their setup so that people can help them fix it. I promise you -- if everyone around the world right now had the problem the author was having, it would have been solved. No one would stand for it. Rather than assume everyone is suffering just like you, assume that other people either a) don't behave the way you do, or b) have found a way to fix the problem.
> This is exactly how I'm using Firefox, right now -- 273 tabs open. It's sitting at ~5% of CPU and 450MB of RAM. And switching tabs is instantaneous.
Which platform are you on? Which Firefox version? Stock or tweaked? Any special add-ons? I use Firefox on OS X and it crawls after 10-15 tabs. Consumes many gigs of memory. Chrome isn't any better. It just splits the memory consumption among multiple processes.
I don't remember browsers being this slow on Linux. Time to go back to the magic land.
400 tabs. Including several active fancy SPAs, like gMail and two copies of Slack, a gDocs or two, sometimes the godawful work LMS.
Stock Firefox 50 (32bit), untweaked with no relevant add-ons (well, except AdBlock Plus), Windows 10, just over 400 tabs open, under 10% CPU, under 2GB of RAM (on a 16GB machine). If I freak it out by doing a bunch of flipping through dormant tabs, I can spike CPU pretty good as it does layout on fifty tabs at once, but who cares, I don't do that. I do find that I need to restart my browser every few hundred tab open/close cycles, which takes under 30 seconds (just did the restart, that dropped RAM use to 1.3GB, but it'll get back up to 1.9 pretty soon). Restarts used to be a lot less frequent, and a lot faster, before work required me to keep two slack clients open. Running multiple YouTube windows at once seems to be bad for uptime.
Regarding OP's complaints, opening a new tab take imperceptible time, a new window is about half a second (only marginally slower than notepad), and switching tabs can be done several times per second.
I have put ZERO effort into make Firefox run faster, unless you count running AdBlock. I haven't even bothered to figure out which is the best adblocker.
People use Chrome because Google (Alphabet?) advertises it heavily including a nag screen on google.com. Also Firefox goes through noticeable cycles of being awesome and being a buggy slow mess.
Chrome came out when Firefox was in a noticeable slump. Remember that in ?2008 being better than IE was the yardstick browsers were measured by and Firefox had passed that many years earlier, so I think they had lost their way a little bit. I remember Firefox 4 was noticeably bad on OSX and it took a long time to fix.
PS I use a browser salad daily (Safari and two channels of Firefox so I can have two instances open at once, and Chrome for Facebook / flash / testing).
uBlock Matrix is good too, if you want to manage all the things. You basically white/blacklist all the image, css, xhr, etc. requests on the page and can set up rules like allow iframe from youtube.com on all sites, to allow the embed youtube frame to show up on pages. Many sites are broken on first load until you get your rules straight but they're trivially fixed. You just click on boxes to allow or deny the particular thing.
Can we stop the "sellout" business? Having a clearly stated and one-click reversible whitelist is neither dishonest nor bad for the user. I like having the option to support sites I enjoy without massively inconveniencing myself. You prefer maximum adblocking, and that's fine, but there's nothing at all wrong with giving us both the choice.
> Can we stop the "sellout" business? Having a clearly stated and one-click reversible whitelist is neither dishonest nor bad for the user.
It is dishonest and bad for the general public. Users expect their adblocker to block adds; not block 'some' adds because of Mafia practices, or corruption (ie. advertising companies paying large, inappropriate sums of money to the company behind ABP in order to be whitelisted by default).
> I like having the option to support sites I enjoy without massively inconveniencing myself.
You can still do this on a case-by-case scenario with uBlock Origin.
> You prefer maximum adblocking, and that's fine, but there's nothing at all wrong with giving us both the choice.
This is false dichotomy. You have the same very choice with uBlock Origin. And uMatrix for that matter. I'm also not taking away your choice; nothing prevents you from installing and using ABP. What I will not do is stopping calling what ABP does sellout. Because as I argued above it is corruption.
On top of that, uBlock Origin is performance-wise better than ABP [1].
> It is dishonest and bad for the general public. Users expect their adblocker to block adds
You still seem to be under the impression that ABP is deceptive. It's not. It explains the "acceptable ads" list and gives you the option to disable it first thing after install. It is not doing anything without the user's knowledge. They're providing a perfectly honest service that you aren't interested in, and you think they should feel bad for that.
> You can still do this on a case-by-case scenario with uBlock Origin.
I specifically said without inconveniencing myself. Building up custom adblock settings for various sites is a chore and I have better things to do with my time. I choose to use a product that takes care of that chore for me, for the most part. You choose to take the time to personalize things, and that's fine; I've done the same in other circumstances. But that's a personal choice, not a moral one.
Nice way of quoting specifically, ignoring the arguments your discussion partner made. I made the point regarding corruption from the company behind ABP. The sums they receive to put companies on white list, are inappropriate. They've also added harmful companies/providers to their white list. Sorry, I can't take that product serious.
> I specifically said without inconveniencing myself.
You said you wanted to support your fav site. That is not hard to do with uBlock Origin. You are actually supporting most sites.
You also make it seem like the ABP whitelist isn't inconveniencing. It is; see above.
> I like having the option to support sites I enjoy without massively inconveniencing myself.
So do I, which is why I use Patreon and subscriptions.
The side effects of viewing ads are that in addition to supporting the sites you enjoy, you're supporting malware distributors, and helping companies compete on ads rather than the quality of their products. Maybe you don't care about your own attention or data security, but your actions don't just affect you.
> The side effects of viewing ads are that in addition to supporting the sites you enjoy, you're supporting malware distributors
No, I'm not, because I'm using ABP's vetted ad provider list. This risk of getting malware from one of those is greater than zero, but a whole lot less than the risk I accept by using the internet at all. I might get struck by lightning too, but I don't waste a lot of time worrying about it.
> and helping companies compete on ads rather than the quality of their products.
I'm sorry, you do not get to blame me for the continued existence of capitalism. That's just ridiculous.
> Maybe you don't care about your own attention or data security, but your actions don't just affect you.
Once again, you are trying to turn your personal software preference into a moral issue. My actions re:AdBlock affect you or anyone else exactly as much as my choice of desktop wallpaper.
> I'm sorry, you do not get to blame me for the continued existence of capitalism. That's just ridiculous.
If you choose to participate in harmful systems, you are in fact partially to blame for the harm done by those systems, and simply staying that I don't get to blame you for our doesn't change that.
Incidentally, criticizing ads isn't a criticism of capitalism: capitalism could exist just fine without ads, and in fact I think removing ads would make capitalism drastically more likely to yield the positive results capitalism purportedly yields.
> Incidentally, criticizing ads isn't a criticism of capitalism: capitalism could exist just fine without ads, and in fact I think removing ads would make capitalism drastically more likely to yield the positive results capitalism purportedly yields.
Indeed. Ask yourself the following question: say a user is not interested in advertisements. Is it therefore not a waste of the advertiser's time and/or money to force the ads upon this user?
I don't know what Firefox you're using but I always find it very slow and sluggish compared to Chrome.
Especially Google maps and YouTube. I always have to switch over to Chrome to use these sites because they always bring FF to its knees. I wonder if this is deliberate on the part of Google.
On a 4 year old MacBook Air running Firefox, google maps takes a second or so to open fully, after browsing around in two google maps windows for a while my memory usage is stable at 1.25GB.
Firefox is pretty sluggish for me on my MBP. It sits around 20% CPU usage idling on certain web sites. Playing back videos makes the fans spin up. It's just terribly slow.
> Stock Firefox 50 (32bit), untweaked with no relevant add-ons (well, except AdBlock Plus),
Same setup, but my Firefox leaks memory like a sieve. It will crash 2x a day easily.
That said, I also have LastPass installed, I am using uBlock instead of ABP (though uBlock uses less memory anyway), and I also have RES installed.
I have seen websites leak incredible amounts of memory. To some extent I don't even know how much it matters what browser is used, if the JS is bad enough.
I've been told that the main version of LastPass currently available from addons.mozilla.org has known problems that cause the browser to lock up and hang indefinitely.
Instead, if you click through to list all releases and select the latest 4.x version, those problems should all be fixed:
Yes, IIRC. They're still imperfect and can lag the browser quite a bit IME, but what can you do... Switching to a different password manager is not easy, and the ones I've looked at all have this/other problems.
I think those of us using LastPass stick with it because no one better supports Linux. It looks like SafeInCloud is yet another option with no Linux support.
My worst problems were with Toptal's website. I even tweeted them about it, but it still leaked memory like crazy. Maybe they fixed it already, but I wouldn't know - they didn't have articles that interest me in a while.
Anyway. I have Firefox with uBlock, on Archlinux. With JS disabled. 400MB, about a hundred tabs. I do recommend using it that way. I also have Chromium, for things that require JS - youtube, facebook and the like.
Easy: add it to something that's alive while the site is alive. Here's an example that leaks some memory every 100ms while you have the site open:
window.leakyArr = [];
function leakStuff() {
leakyArr.push("This is leaked" + Math.random());
}
setInterval(leakStuff, 100);
Of course if you unload the page this will all be collected. But if you have a page you leave open for a long time and it does stuff like this, it's possible for the page to use hundreds of megabytes of RAM. In fact, twitter does just that if you leave it open for a day or three, for reasons more or less like the above: they're showing or caching all the stuff that came in since you opened the page. That's more and more stuff as time goes on.
Nearly 400 tabs open across several browser windows. Firefox with Tabmix plus and noscript addons. Performance and memory use is very comfortable with very few browser crashes.
I use Chrome for websites that use huge amounts of JavaScript links, which are pain to use with noscript. Chrome does not like a lot of tabs open and chews up memory and performance if forced to run large numbers of tabs.
Firefox is going for at most N+1 cores worth of processes, as I understand it (one per core for websites and one extra for compositing and the UI) and is doing to use cooperative threading (Quantum DOM) to improve responsiveness within those processes without the overhead of running a process per website.
I opened up 12 tabs on thingiverse.com on FF, clicking on random links on the page, scrolled to the bottom of several of the expanding lists, and desktop Slack (implemented using Electron) is still consuming more CPU than FF on my laptop.
(Lots of extensions, including Tree Style Tabs, Session Manager, Tab Mix Plus, uBlock Origin, RefControl, Cookie Controller, etc.)
Oh you are like my mother. I do appreciate Firefox respect for standards, but their UI hasn't innovated since 90s. Two months ago it took me 20 minutes on my moms Windows laptop to find current version of Firefox! It lacks unified search bar, tab expose, even some basic hotkeys are backwards.
I can't believe it uses so little resources though. It's not uncommon to see a single tab use 400 MB of memory on Chrome/Safari.
I have some similar usage patterns... I really hope this is true because I think you just inspired me to switch from Chrome to Firefox! Chrome can't handle 100 (w/ a bunch of apps like Gmail) on a fully loaded Macbook very well.
The only other thing I'd use is a few Chrome apps like Keep and Signal.
This Firefox instance I reply from has a bit under 1.3Gb allocated, with 7 open tabs. Three of the tabs are primitive blog articles, a couple weren't even loaded until I clicked on them now. Adblock Plus, PassFF and NextPlease are the only extensions running; I remember though the extensions didn't make a dent in memory footprint.
about:tabs (see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-stats/ ) is showing me "151 tabs" and "57 tabs have been loaded" for my current session. The other 90-some I haven't looked at this session, so they're left unloaded. I can post a screenshot, but I could fake that just as easily as I could fake my claims above, so it's not any more "proof".
I'm certainly doing other things right now (e.g. compiling).
It _really_ depends on what you have in your 100 tabs. If you have 100 copies of gmail, you're more likely to have a bad time than if you have 100 sane pages. ;)
After being burned by incompatible bookmark formats years ago (I used to keep everything in bookmarks that were tagged within firefox) I ended up with a habit that whenever I have something that I want to read (or refer to) later I leave it open in a tab.
Only browser that could handle this habit was indeed Firefox, running on Windows 7. How it usually went down was that whenever I hit 1000 tabs I reserved some time to read what was worth reading and close tabs that weren't interesting anymore, until I was down to about 200-500. I didn't use addons much, I remember only having vertical tab list, one of the (ad)blockers and an addon that displayed current tab count below the tab list.
That setup had 8GB of RAM, and I didn't have problems playing games without closing the browser. IIRC it usually reserved around 2-4GB. When I installed Windows 10 on the same machine the browser had 1370 tabs open. I know I still have the sessionstore.js backup somewhere, but I did start from 0 again with the new install.
I'm quite sure that some Mozilla people have noticed my crash reports every now and then :) (though mostly the browser was running fine without problems)
I've since started to use things like Google Keep and Stash to keep the tab count down a bit. Browser that I'm currently on has 229 tabs open, mostly temporary, work related things.
> Stock firefox can't go further than 100 tabs, and you can't do literally anything else on your computer at that time.
Perhaps it's because of what else is running on your system and your system's hardware and OS. I regularly use Firefox with a few hundred tabs open across a couple of windows. On Windows, I find that if I have IE or Edge or Chrome running, each with a few tabs, most of my RAM just goes to them. I also hibernate my system and restart it only once every few weeks.
I use several extensions with Firefox too:
- uBlock Origin (block ads)
- Privacy Badger (tracking blocker)
- Perspectives (distributed certificate checks and better error handling)
- HTTPS Everywhere (default to https on sites and avoid plain http)
- Self-Destructing Cookies (self-destruct cookies for a tab after closing it)
- Tab Mix Plus (better tab management)
- Session Manager (better session management between restarts)
- Tree Style Tab (hierarchical tab list management)
- TooManyTabs (almost self-explanatory)
- Lazarus (save form data to restore or reuse)
- Link Alert (so I know if a link is a file or an internal site link or external site link or a popup and can then decide if I want to click it)
- FoxyProxy (switch proxies easily)
- Foxclocks (handy clocks in different times zones)
- DownThemAll (easier downloads of multiple items, which I need occasionally)
- and many more
Although I experience slow starts and long shutdowns, in general, and in comparison, the browser is not RAM hungry compared to opening just a couple of tabs on Internet Explorer/Edge or about ten tabs or so in Chrome (with fewer extensions than above in Chrome). On OS X/macOS though, Firefox seems more RAM hungry, is a bit more sluggish and consumes more energy than Safari.
Shutting down the browser and opening it again will also help since Firefox by default does not load tabs until they get the focus (this "load tabs on demand" behavior has been around for quite sometime). It will load some stuff from the cache though. One more thing you can try is create a new profile (take care to get bookmarks from the old one) and see if that avoids any problems with extensions or other cruft in the older profile.
Ha ha, what proof would satisfy you, where my word does not, O doubting Thomas? If I was going to lie to you on HN, I'd also be able to fake a screenshot. Maybe you'd like administrator access to my machine, so you can satisfy your smug certainty of what is not possible?
I haven't had my FF (stock plus a few plugins) under 300 tabs in months. It doesn't stop me from playing AAA titles, max settings at high resolution, at 30-60 fps. Sometimes while running a VM (because Windows is a gaming OS, not a work OS). I only mention that to disabuse you of the claim that...
> you can't do literally anything else on your computer at that time
Firefox Developer on KDE Neon (stock KDE 5 on Ubuntu LTS).
Tab Tree (instead of TreeStyleTabs) and Suspend Tab (instead of UnloadTab.)
Edit: and yes, Linux often feels like magic land. I happen to like Windows 10 better than most earlier Windowses but a good Linux is better for me as a developer on every point except support for MS Office and (niche) tools.
Yes, the browsers (Chrome, Firefox) work noticeably worse than on Windows for me. Also they tend to freeze the computer completely at some point (after taking all the available RAM for themselves).
Browser performance seems to be pretty much as random as printers these days.
Mac El Capitan, FirefoxDeveloperEdition (which iirc is basically equivalent to Firefox Beta), not many addons (Tab Groups, uBlock Origin, No More 404s).
Even more impressive, the Nightly versions of both Chrome and Firefox are (almost always) stable enough for daily use. I use them as my everyday browsers at work, and they probably crash / have bugs about 1 day out of every 2 months.
Agreed. I started using Nightly — instead of my usually Beta¹ — for the up-to-date GTK+ 3.2x compatibility, but I like some of the pre-release features, and it almost never crashes on me
1: On Ubuntu you can use their Firefox Beta PPA² as long as you don't mind that it replaces release-version Firefox.
I started using Nightly for kicks and giggle around 6 months ago and my about:crashes shows me only 6 crashes (none of which were able to kill anything more than a tab (and in all the cases, the offending website was YouTube)).
Nightly is amazingly good even if it is built from the HEAD of the trunk (branch in git terms).
If you have Flash installed and don't have an adblocker, for most textual content (not Imgur, YouTube), your browser is working 10x harder than it needs to.
It's depressing that an image viewing site and a video playing site are in the same list of resource uses. YouTube plays 1080p videos. Imgur shows photos. It's a testament to the brazen disrespect of client resources that went into building the latter.
If you're viewing imgur without ad blocker your computer isn't working 10x harder than it should, but 100x.
I remember when imgur was started because there were no good image sharing sites. They were all bulky, slow and terrible. imgur came along and made sharing images easy. Now they are one of the ones they set out to fix.
It sucks, but I don't know if they had much choice. Imgur is the classic example of the "treadmill" inherent to business models like image hosting:
1. All the existing image hosting sites suck
2. Someone gets sick enough of it that they launch a new one, with all the features people want: free, direct linking, no/unobtrusive ads, etc.
3. Because this new site is so much better, everyone flicks to it. Bandwidth costs skyrocket.
4. The operators need to cover their costs, so they start adding more ads and blocking direct links. The site starts to suck. Go to step 1.
Sometimes investor dollars get involved, but it doesn't change the basic formula. This is why we've seen Photobucket -> minus -> giphy-> imgur -> gfycat, and it will continue in his vein forever. I don't think there's any way to run a site like this profitably without pissing people off sufficiently that they go elsewhere.
There is an additional components for imgur : it became more than an image sharing site, it's now a weird looking social network with a very niche community with its own rules and culture.
Imgur was originally developed 'as a gift' for reddit. As any HN commenters would tell you, your business model should never rely on external companies.
Maybe we need a more distributed model for image hosting for it to be sustainable?
I'm thinking about something like a P2P solution, IPFS-style. You could pay for upload space in two ways - either directly, the bog standard way, or with your own drive space. So for instance, you get 1GB free space for image uploads if you agree to set aside 1GB on your drive as a cache. Couple that with your own "seeding" CDNs storing all the images, and maybe this would be enough to distribute bandwidth costs across all the people who want their images hosted?
Not sure if the browsers are capable enough to pull something like this off without relying on some sort of plugin or an application.
Before imgur, there was photobucket, imageshack, whatever - they were beyond dumpy jankey messes that you truly didn't know what you were going to get when you clicked on them. There was a good chance a new window was going to open behind your current target, or that the images would be intentionally low res until you clicked into them (for more CPM's for the host).
Imgur came along and stole their bread and butter, but then they took on a bunch of VC money and had to figure out how they were going to profit. I'm not sure if they've figured it out, but their site has definitely suffered - although not nearly to the degree as the predecessors that they replaced.
> It's a testament to the brazen disrespect of client resources that went into building the latter.
I particularly like how imgurl flat-out refuses to work if you disable JavaScript. It's an image-viewing site. Browsers have been able to download images since the beginning, and have been able to render them inline since almost the beginning. There's no need for JavaScript at all, and yet imgurl deliberately choose not to work. 'Brazen disrespect' doesn't begin to describe it.
I don't mind that they try to use JavaScript to minimise the data they serve. They could always show one or a few images without JavaScript, and provide a link to more (and hide it when JavaScript is enabled).
Note that this has nothing to do with ad blocking — they could display all the ads they want to a non-script-executer.
'Brazen disrespect' really doesn't begin to describe it. 'Rank unprofessionalism' starts to.
YouTube's videos decompress to much larger quantities of data than Imgur images, but that's not what really affects browser responsiveness, especially when the video decoding is handled by dedicated hardware.
Whether you're displaying a static image or an animated GIF or a H.246 stream, drawing the next frame doesn't require interpreting or JIT compiling any JavaScript, it doesn't require thrashing the garbage collector, and it doesn't require re-computing the page layout.
To be entirely fair: there's a lot of video content on there now too, with the gifv and related shenanigans. Personally I find it incredibly convenient that uploading gifs or mp4's there automatically converts them to gifv, gif and mp4. That's really handy, especially for a free service with no strings attached (that I know of) to offer.
The developer edition was mentioned, and that runs Electrolysis already. Even the normal release does if you don't have incompatible plugins.
(FWIW, before electrolysis Firefox was unusuable with many tabs for me, now it is perfectly fine, so either I made a random setup change at the same time, some other optimization landed or it actually helps)
Yeah, to me it seems like a mistake given that such a high performance penalty will likely be incurred, and given the existence of Rust which could address a number of the security problems for which the multi-process model was devised in the first place.
Note that e10s currently only splits the browser into a content process and a browser process. I don't think they will ever move to 1:1 tabs per process.
Ctrl+tab'd thru all 56 tabs in this group, waited for them to finish loading, opened activity monitor: CPU at 20%, RAM at 811MB. So yea, a fair amount weren't loaded, but loading them didn't make too big of a difference.
CPU at 20%, "loading didn't make too much of a difference"??? 20% is obscene for a process without interaction. Imagine a paused video player taking 20%, or a minimised word editor. Even at 58 videos or documents.
You forget that webpages are allowed to do what ever the hell they want, and so each is probably running a script or two in the background. We put up with a lot in webapps that would never stand in a desktop app.
I don't forget, I just don't forgive. It's unacceptable either way. Someone has to take responsibility---might as well start with the browser. Then we can push it down from there; maybe if browsers were held accountable for pages' resource usage they'd implement resource controls. Like they currently do with limiting setTimeout on inactive pages, but more comprehensively. And maybe they'd implement better inspection tools for resource usage (chrome was ahead of the game; I'm looking at you, Firefox )
This is a huge problem. Javascript has become a blight on the web, and browsers really need to make it easier to manage stopping scripts on background tabs and such.
Well hell, maybe it's time for me to look at FF again. I switched away because it was a memory hog... And now chrome's a memory hog. I read that they made improvements, but 800MB for 240+ tabs is pretty good.
About that, I've noticed some weird stuff as well while debugging why our web app was crashing the tab on chrome after extended use without a page reload.
After a hour normal workload, chrome on mac used almost a GB ram, while on windows was at 120mb. Same page, similar workflow etc.
I still have no idea what's going on but there's definitely something about how memory is handled across platforms.
I don't know which Firefox you're using, but I want it. Mine is super laggy all the time, even with one or two tabs open. Opening a new tab takes half a second, visiting a new page takes half a second, going back takes half a second. It's extremely frustrating to use, and I don't even have that many extensions or history pages.
Backup/Restore your bookmarks etc. afterwards as it cleans up everything. Resetting everything afterwards took 1h for me but was totally worth it in retrospective.
6 tabs, 1GB of RAM, ~20% CPU usage for me on Firefox. I have a few basic QoL plugins like LastPass, uBlock, and NoScript. It's absolutely ridiculous. I want to keep using FireFox, but it's forcing me to consider moving to another browser.
Looking at `find ~/.mozilla/firefox -name \.sqlite`, there are some more such databases for window.localStorage and the like. So this could be generalized to
Firefox and SQLite have actually improved a lot since those days. And it's not like Firefox uses a different database system on different platforms, it's all exactly the same.
When was this? I recall having to use Cocktail with OS X (10.2-10.9) because the system maintenance scripts would never run if my laptop was off/asleep at midnight. In general, Unix users have had to use cron scripts almost since its origin.
Opening a tab is the fastest thing about Firefox. I mean it plays a little animation, but you can ignore that and start typing immediately after ctrl-t.
That's bizarre; I just held down C-t for a few seconds and tab were opening at the rate of maybe 5-10 per second and it is now using 630M of ram with 98 tabs open. A-1 to switch back to the tab I had open was instantaneous (though the tab bar was animated and took almost 2s for the scroll animation to finish)
I'm not sure how the GP has over 200 tabs open with less RAM used than 98 empty tabs though.
It's a 2013 MacBook Air, and my desktop is some custom thing with an i5, 16 GB RAM and a Samsung Evo SSD. They're both equally laggy, to the point that my browser froze for half a second while posting the previous comment (and regularly does so). However, after running the cleanup script in the sibling comment, it at least appears to not freeze.
It's interesting how tabs have supplanted bookmarks for a lot of people. Neither one is a particularly good UI, mind you, but tabs are a little bit better than bookmarks.
I wish something even better would come along but I don't really know what that would look like.
Firefox with Tab Groups and AwesomeBar fits very nicely with my workflow--
1. I dont have to think. I Cmd+Click links as I find them interesting, switch tabs as my attention changes, etc. and the tabs just stay there, waiting.
2. AwesomeBar searches over open tabs by default, and selecting a suggestion switches to that open tab rather than opening a new one.
3. When I have time, I can sort my tabs into labelled groups ("Work", "Research", "Shopping", "Politics", etc.)
4. Tabs are sync'd to and from my Firefox for Android automatically, so if I'm on the move and I want to pull up that thing on the tip of my tongue, it's right there on my phone as well.
I'm sure it's not perfect for everyone, but it works for me /shrug
For the lazy: Awesomebar is just firefox's the built-in address bar. It can be configured to search simultaneous through history, tab (titles of open tabs), etc.
Or one can specify what to search with this micro language:
Add ^ to search for matches in your browsing history.
Add * to search for matches in your bookmarks.
Add + to search for matches in pages you've tagged.
Add % to search for matches in your currently open tabs.
Add ~ to search for matches in pages you've typed.
Add # to search for matches in page titles.
Add @ to search for matches in web addresses (URLs).
Add $ to search for matches in suggestions.
> Another nugget I just found out about: alt-enter opens the what you typed in in a new tab.
If you're visiting a site by entering the address (as opposed to using search or a bang command on DuckDuckGo or using a bookmark/history entry), then you'd also appreciate the following shortcuts:
Ctrl+Enter (Cmd+Enter on Mac) for "www." prefix and ".com" suffix on the domain. Eg: type "google" <Ctrl+Enter> (or Cmd+Enter) to go to www.google.com
Shift+Enter for "www." prefix and ".net" suffix on the domain. Eg: type "jsfiddle" <Shift+Enter> to go to www.jsfiddle.net
Ctrl+Shift+Enter (Cmd+Shift+Enter on Mac) for "www." prefix and ".org" suffix on the domain. Eg: type "wikipedia" <Ctrl+Shift+Enter> (or Cmd+Shift+Enter) to go to www.wikipedia.org
In my knowledge, the www.<domain>.com autofill with Ctrl+Enter was pioneered by Internet Explorer, but Firefox is the only browser that took it to the next level as a built-in feature.
You might (might not) find my extension useful. I made it for people that horde tabs like you and me. It's a page that lists tabs per window visually and if you click on one of the links it focuses the tab for you.
I just installed it (Tabist reports 415 tabs in 9 windows). Looks tentatively useful, I'll keep it around.
If it's easy to add a by-date-last-opened to the order-by at the top, that MIGHT be useful? If it's easy to add the text of the window title to the table, that MIGHT be useful? Those are just top-of-my-head spitball ideas.
415 tabs! Wow, that's even more than I typically have... 200ish over many windows.
One thing that is not 100% clear is that you can press cmd-shift-e to bring up the tabist page. or ctrl-shift-e if you are on windows/linux.
> by-date-last-opened to the order-by at the top
That's planned but not easily attained information from the browser so it'd have to be tracked by the extension from the startup of it.
> If it's easy to add the text of the window title to the table
That's how the extension works but there was a bug[1] that I fixed in firefox that needs to be propagated through the builds in order for it to show up in release. I believe it will land in firefox 51 which comes out early next year... yeah 2017-01-24 is when it will be released[2]. If you want it now you can get on the beta build and it will be fixed.
Thanks, I will definitely try this one since I use tons of tabs as an interface for "read it later" stuff and avoid forgetting about them altogether.
It'd be nice to include the favicon (if available) next to each link so that a visual scan is easy to perform. Otherwise a "Find on page" (Ctrl+F) would have to be used to find something in a list of a few hundred tabs. Sort options like the ones mentioned in another comment here about the date added, and additionally grouping links by domain, would also be useful.
I hope it is useful for you! The favicon is actually already displayed but I didn't update the example gif yet.
Sorting by the date added/visited is a planed feature but a little tougher to get from firefox so it will take a little bit of work. The extension actually has a group by domain sort(but not strictly group by domain as it's grouped by window first)
I use tab groups as well and I have hundreds of tabs spread among all the groups. I like this feature but manual organization of the tabs still feels slow and cumbersome. It also tends to be really slow to first open up due to the huge numbers of thumbnails involved.
I think that Firefox has the features by default, if you start typing site or text which matches to any tab which is currently open, then it'll open the current one rather than start a new one.
I use tabs, but have them organized into a vertical tree. This allows many more to be visible at a time. Since they are in a sidebar, you interface with them like bookmarks, but they don't spawn a new tab when clicked. Because they are organized into a tree structure, its easy to recall the purpose of each.
For example, a search engine tab might lead to a stackoverflow tab which might lead to a few documentation tabs. As long as you remember what the documentarion is for, you can tell what the SO thread is about, and what is was you searched.
Same here. Recently changed from TreeStyleTabs to Tab Tree. The latter has fewer options but seems to work better and be more stable on my setup. (Firefox/Firefox Developer Edition, settings synced between all of them.)
For years my wishlist item is a project manager that can treat a single window as a project. A bit like a stateful, window-oriented Delicious/Pinboard.
For example, say I'm looking for a sofa to buy. I might open the ones I like in a bunch of tabs to mull over. However, if I'm at work, I'd like to just close the window. Since the project manager has associated the window with a project, I can just close the window. Later, I select "Sofa hunting" from the Projects menu and off I go with the same set of tabs.
I'd go one step further: Think of the project as a "pile of bookmarks" where the visible set of tabs is a subset of all boomarked tabs. For example, say I find a nice sofa. I add it to the pile and close the tab. The project now includes that URL, but it won't open a tab for it unless I go into the project browser and find it there and open it. So this disassociates the tab from the bookmark, but retains the "working set" that is my project session. Similar to how an IDE or editor might preserve which files I have open, but still maintain my entire project.
There are some extensions out there that do similar things, but don't get the ergonomics right. There's a couple of "session managers", but they are dumb: You "load" a session, and then "save" it. Changing the window doesn't automatically update the session, and closing the window destroys your session. Safari also lets you bookmark a bunch of tabs as a folder and reopen them again, but there's no link between the folder and the open window.
I once started on an extension like this for Safari, but the current browser extension APIs aren't great. For example, I'd want to sync the projects with something like iCloud, so that they're available on all devices; but I don't think there's a way to do this without involving a server app. I might try again, though.
I love "bookmark all tabs" commands. I tend to open a lot of related tabs and run out of time like the OP but I don't leave the all open, I bookmark them all with a few clicks and move on...
But I agree about the UI in general. My habit seems to require some monthly to quarterly clean up to keep it from getting to be too much.
I use a hand-cranked version of this, and have been for over 10 years, I call it WebBookmarks.
It's a small bookmarklet that when clicked takes the current tabs URL and adds it as an escaped param onto the WebBookmarks URL and launches WebBookmarks. Then in the WebBookmarks form the Title and URL are already filled in, I assign a category, and click save. Job done.
I do this and do not use local machine bookmarks at all, as I use so many different machines (linux, windows, tablet, phone etc) during the course of a week, that keeping all those locally stored bookmarks in sync would be a nightmare.
It works for me, although I've not touched the code in forever so it's looking a bit dated - simply because it's rock solid.
it should (would?) look like a tree (or more precisely a forest), that'd show how you explored things, with text saved and indexed, and with the option to save even full pages too (for the last ~week or so).
it should be integrated with history (and the back button should not just show a dumb list on right click)
While I don't have _that_ many tabs open. I do usually keep 20 - 50 open in chrome. Same experience, with low / no memory foot-print; using The Great Suspender.
How is this possible? I'm sitting here with an i5-4690, 32GB RAM, Firefox 50 with about 50 tabs open 1.5GB RAM usage, about half a second to get a usable new tab, and it crashes at least once every few days.
Literally the only reason I'm on Firefox is tab groups, but my performace is basically identical with tab groups disabled.
Win 10 / Arch on the same hardware, slightly better performance booted into Win 10.
Used to run Win8.1 on this machine, Win 10 runs it better.
Used to run Ubuntu on this machine, Arch runs it better.
It would make my day if there was a silver bullet that made FF fast, or at least not crash all the time. The same machine can handle literally 10 times more Chrome tabs without any trace of struggle. But I prefer FF for a few things, so sort of stuck in between.
Funny. I use Firefox on my Arch system, and at times I had to stop and remove tabs because they were becoming an unorganized mess (>600 tabs). I've never had much issues with responsiveness unless some particular website I've opened locks up, and with tab groups and tab load only on click, I can easily manage a lot of tabs without much memory use.
You could try checking your RAM, I used to have an issue with FF crashing quite frequently, but found that it was part of a larger issue of having corrupt RAM on board.
I'm in a similar situation to the GP. Addons used to help:
BarTab Heavy - Allows unloading of unused tabs. Lets tabs act like temporary bookmarks.
Tree Style Tab - Just great tab management.
uBlock Origin + uMatrix - Lots less cruft loaded and running to slow things down.
Session Manager - Lets me save windows with groups of tabs like bookmarks, works amazingly for looking things up and being able to restore a lot of references at once.
Unfortunately mine is usually climbing to 2.5 Gb with 20-30 tabs if left open for several days. As a side effect it starts using 12% CPU constantly and any script heavy page load just sends it into (Not Responding) state for 30-60 seconds. uBlock and LastPass only now, too lazy to reinstall all the other addons :) .
But it is still better then Chrome performance vise. Chrome is just generally laggy and unresponsive often (no idea why).
Mmmm that's true, I don't. I tend to close GMail tabs once I'm done with them because I also noticed they tend to leak and are poorly optimized for non-Chrome browsers.
I run a similar number of tabs in Pale Moon (browser) with slightly better performance. But most of this is because I make a choice not to use shitty website that are written in javascript instead of html.
I have started to use HTML version of GMail. Really refreshing to have a snappy interface again. Manual Ctrl+R to refresh though. That tab is using 1.4MB of RAM.
That's pretty astounding to me. Firefox instantly eats 500+ mb of ram the moment I open it on Windows (16gb ram, i7 processor, ok video card). If I leave it open with one or two tabs (usually doesn't matter what sites), for about an hour, it goes up to 1.2gb to 1.4gb of ram consumption while doing nothing. If I close all tabs, the ram consumption doesn't drop, I have to close Firefox and restart it to accomplish that. It would be amazing to run more than 30 tabs. Once I leave Firefox open for a few hours, it basically becomes unusable performance wise. I've been using Firefox since it was released initially; Chrome never gives me this performance erosion problem, constantly tempts me to switch, I just happen to enjoy Firefox more. The sole extension I'm using is an ad blocker and my Firefox is always self-updated.
Oh, so I'm not alone in wondering what the hell he was talking about. I often have like 50 tabs open in Firefox when researching something. I notice no delay when opening an empty tab.
If browsers are slow, it's mostly because of some horrible JavaScript running in the background, i.e. poorly optimized websites.
You have a magic firefox then. I try to use it that way too, but its sitting at 1.8GB of RAM and 25-30% CPU usage with 103 tabs and it routinely bombs on me after a week or two when it gets up to 2.5GB or so.
no, you have 273 labels displayed in your browser UI, not open tabs. Opera 12.x can hold >100 real loaded and rendered tabs open at 1-2GB ram with ZERO influence on browser responsiveness.
Nowadays every single tab in Chrome/Opera 40.something/Vivaldi progressively slows down UI. ~50 tabs means about 1 second UI delay when going fullscreen on YT. Not to mention the most trivial website takes ~100MB of ram, while Opera 12.x was somehow able to do the same thing in ~10MB per website.
I used to do this too, and as of ~ 2 weeks ago, about half of all my stored tabs are replaced with 'New tab' after restarting the browser. No amount of screwing around in the profile and session_store or whatever it's called, or with plugins, will fix it. So now I'm weaning myself off 'tabs as bookmarks', and going back (after, what, 10 years?) to using bookmarks the way they were meant.
the session manager addon would have helped in that situation. it creates regular snapshots of your session which can be used to restore things if something like that happens (which is rare in my experience)
Well from the comments on the addon page, it seems it has the same problems with multi process as the built-in session manager, and tab mix plus' session manager, have (blank windows after restoring). But I haven't tried this particular addon, it might work.
Hah, I'm still using an old version of Opera, but the #1 speedup is simply using it's built-in (and easy to tweak) site-preferences so that only certain sites are whitelisted for Javascript.
Some sites are just ridiculously faster and more-responsive, especially general news sites where all I really want is some text I can immediately read and scroll through.
The http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/_suspendtab.html.en extension also help keeping cpu and memory down when using lots of tabs. (of course when a tab become suspended the state is at least partially lost)
I really doubt you and you dont provide any details about your setup either. I have exactly the same issues as the poster. I have about 20 tabs and it is costing 1.7GB ram. Note that I almost never reboot, so it may well be leaks, but even so, on eventual crashes, reloading my tabs is painfully slow.
Mac El Capitan, FirefoxDeveloperEdition (which iirc is basically equivalent to Firefox Beta), not many addons (Tab Groups, uBlock Origin, No More 404s). I can screenshot my Activity Monitor if that'd help?
Same here, at the start of August I had a total of around 350 tabs, divided into 8 groups according to topics (General, Entertainment, GitHub, Firefox Dev, GNOME Dev, Thesis, Interview Preps etc.) and my CPU idled at around 4% (2.2GHz - 2.7GHz i5 laptop) with RAM at around 1.6GB when started and routinely reached 3GB by the end of the day. It did occansionally crash the tabs while switching between too many YouTube tabs too fast. Took about 4 seconds to start a new instance (meaning that getting a usable instance, the UI came in under 2 secs), shutdown instantly.
Yeah, the article got up my nose as well. I've got a couple of hundred tabs in tab groups in FF, probably about 50 have something in them (the others aren't loaded until I navigate to them). Opening a new tab is instant.
I get a fair bit more resource usage than you're reporting, though...
Firefox is a nice workhorse. Lots to like about it. One problem is the GUI latency. Between Chrome instantaneous response and Firefox jitter I always end up back to Chrome.
If you're using an integrated Intel GPU, immediately switch to modesetting X driver. Intel DDX leaks surfaces and that is attributed to process which allocated them.
Really? You're the first person I've heard that doesn't have that problem. My Firefox gets quite slow on both my home and work computers¹ at ~40+ tabs. The tab groups extension (which they removed from core, I guess to make room for Pocket and Hello²) does make managing lots of tabs much easier however. I regularly have to clean out my tabs or switching takes several seconds.
I currently have 37 tabs open and Firefox is using ~800MB of RAM. Basically, either you're doing something really magical with your Firefox, or are just spewing bullshit.
Someone's going to say its the fault of extensions (what good is Firefox without extensions, anyway) so let's see:
- Decentraleyes (locally emulates CDNs)
- HTTPS Everywhere (why is this not the default behavior?)
- OverbiteFF (support for the gopher protocol)
- Perapera (Mandarin word splitting and Mandarin↔English dictionary)
- Pinboard (I can't imagine this uses any significant resources whatsoever)
- Random Agent Spoofer (change user agent at random)
- Reddit Enhancement Suite
- Tab Groups (I miss when tab panorama was default, but I can see why it's an extension)
- uBlock Origin
- uMatrix (possibly my single favorite Firefox extension; control JS and more, like NoScript on steroids and easier to use)
- VimFx
That's… actually quite a lot. I wonder if extensions alone are my problem, but then again Firefox without extensions isn't much better than Edge (and Edge seems faster on average).
I don't think I've tweaked any settings in about:config.
Is that enough details about my setup for people to help fix it?
Anecdotally complaints about how slow Firefox is seem fairly common. I think your last paragraph is a bit off the mark.
--
1. Both Windows 10 Pro; 16GB/32GB of RAM respectively; both 4GHz i7-4790k; anyway, point is they're pretty good computers.
> - HTTPS Everywhere (why is this not the default behavior?)
has to intercept every request
> - OverbiteFF (support for the gopher protocol)
might have to intercept every request, and why do you need this
> - Random Agent Spoofer (change user agent at random)
has to intercept every request
> - uBlock Origin
has to intercept every request
> - uMatrix (possibly my single favorite Firefox extension; control JS and more, like NoScript on steroids and easier to use)
has to intercept every request
Stop installing so many stupid extensions. Random UA switching is especially pointless; “Decentraleyes” is a close runner-up. Firefox has performance problems, but I think you’re definitely seeing extension bloat if you have that kind of device.
I’m someone who also values privacy, but a few of the extensions in question almost certainly don’t offer enough value for their cost. Random UA switching makes you more fingerprintable. And this all on Windows 10…
When I'm in my working tab group, that's like 8 tabs or so. Most of the tabs in the storage groups are months old (more like bookmarks I didn't have to hit Cmd+D to save)
Back when I used to use tabs as bookmarks, I would routinely get to >700 open tabs accumulating over the months. It was a useless agony. Pocket was a godsend for me. The urge to let tabs linger is still there sometimes, but it doesn't get over 20-ish nowadays. Sticking to GTD workflow helps too.
In most contexts, an entertainment event being "presented by X" just means that X funded the event in exchange for having their name associated with it. E.g., "Thursday Night Football, Presented by Bud Light" -- Bud Light has nothing to do with the content or transmission of the event, it just paid the most money for advertising.
However: you're totally right that they may do some cool tie-in with the phone itself in this case.
The one issue I see with bringing Flux/Redux to iOS is that iOS shipped with unidirectional data flow from day 1 with KVO: view => IBAction on controller => model method (incl. any API or CoreData work) => controller is notified of changes via KVO => rerenders view via a pure function. I don't think it was struggling for a new, clean solution here in the same way the web was.
That said, for people used to the React patterns, this could be a somewhat easy way to make the transition over to iOS programming! So that's cool :D
Except kvo doesn't have a sane threading model, nor is it typed, and can crash your program if you fail to unregister properly. It makes the programs a lot harder to debug,not simpler.
> Ignoring [the mental state of the people being optimized for], what is wrong with inequality between groups?
A bit cheeky, I know, but I don't think you can just write off emotional results of systems.
But to answer in better faith: I think [Rawls's Veil of Ignorance thought experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) is a good response here. In short (skipping how he arrives at the conclusion): when judging the quality of life a system produces, measuring by maximums (or even averages) is probably not the way to go. Median and mode are also very important dimensions to pay attention to.
Also worth noting: if we did live in some future utopia where "inequality" really meant the difference between "all my needs are easily met with little stress" and "I experience nearly constant bliss"... yea, we can have some inequality. But, pockets of the developed world aside, we're not there yet. Not even close. So long as we have around 50% of the world in poverty, and more than 1 billion children in extreme poverty, aiming to "lift all boats" faster than the amount a "rising tide" does is a discussion worth having.
...which is why I spent my entire last paragraph discussing why addressing inequality is often considered as a way to tackle inequality. We don't get to pretend they're separate things for at least another few centuries.
There are dozens and dozens of studies all reaching this same conclusion, if the International Energy Agency isn't good enough for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=greenhouse+gas+emissions+by+...
OP's point was that the global rich (most US citizens included) have lifestyles and patterns of consumption which produce an outsized amount of greenhouse gasses, and any attempts to alter those behaviors are routinely met with anger and political backlash