Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

https://news.ycombinator.com takes a second longer with uBlock

That means HN is doing things the right way :)

How is it so?

Page A loads content for X seconds and Z seconds loads ads. uBlock overhead is Y second but saves Z seconds by blocking ads. Total time with uBlock is X+Y-Z. If page has zero ads the time will be X+Y-0 which is greater than X+0.

It's also probably entirely random fluctuations in this case. uBlock doesn't add anywhere near that much latency normally.

Just to clarify, this is desirable because "fewer/no ads" is preferred over "faster page load times"?

Yes. Pages with ads are unreadable. I'm horrified every time I see friends navigate with no adblockers. I always recommend one. I'm going to start recommending Firefox again, as I did at the times of IE6.

Presumably because uBlock's baseline overhead is approximately 1 second. Therefore on other sites there is enough overhead from ads or tracking that it is still worth it to use uBlock.

Here's evidence[1] that uBlock adds less than 100ms to "an atypically large page from a nice site" (i.e. one that doesn't have any ads). Some other effect is at work here, it's probably just random network latency differences.

[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Doesn't-uBlock-Origin...

So it has 1 second of startup cost? I have a hard time believing uBlock would add that much time to every request. Ideally this would make a more realistic measurement that doesn't include startup cost.

Or maybe it's just random variation.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact