>Its pretty clear MoviePass is jsut a marketing firm"
Well duh, what else could turn "We were stupid and now going bankrupt and need more money quickly before we die so we are going to raise prices and put even more limitations on what you can watch and how often you can use our services" into:
'MoviePass' statement claims these changes are being made "to enhance discovery, and to drive attendance to smaller films and bolster the independent film community."'
>"Again, supply and demand go out the window when government subsidies get involved. There are times when this is a bad thing. Education is not one of those times"
Yes it most certainly *is* one of those times. When the government hands out money to just anyone for just any degree, the demand goes up, which increases the price. When they hand out "free" money, the colleges will also simply absorb that money as pure profit and raise their rates. And when consumers don't feel the pain of a price because it has been "subsidized", they often make unsound financial decisions. When Left-run colleges pile on more and more nonsense core curriculum like gender studies, and ethnic studies, PC stuff, etc, than students have to complete more courses, that all costs more money in the total degree. And when we encourage "everyone" to go to college at all costs, for ANY degree, which also lowering standards, that further pushes up the demand, which increases costs, and we end up with a supply of lots of people who have useless or meaningless degrees. And that erodes the value of a degree even further, so many people end up having to pursue EVEN MORE expense to step up to post-graduate degrees.
>"When I was in school. The right wing in America said it would be fine and the kids would [...]"
Sorry, reality check time. The reasons the tuitions went sky high are because the LEFT WING in America making so many grants, more guaranteed loans with much lower standards, requiring additional nonsense additions to the core curriculum, and especially "loaning" to those who could not pay and/or really had no business going to their selected school or perhaps college at all.
This is almost exactly what happened when the Government started subsidizing EMR (electronic medical records) systems and piling on their regulations- the street prices of the EMR's immediately went up exactly as high as the additional incentives and then went up even higher and higher with each round of regulations.
Free money isn't free, regulations cost lots of money, and risky loaning has consequences. Having read many of your posts, it is apparent that everything wrong in the world is the so-called "Right Wing's" fault, free market's fault, and/or the lack of Socialism, but I think you are misguided....
>"The 2nd Amendment explains that the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is for "A well regulated Militia", and the purpose of well-regulated militias is for "the security of a free State". Those are conditions."
No it does not. And if you don't believe it, AND you like to ignore the Supreme Court, AND you ignore all the historical documents from the Founders, then start reading the various States' Constitutions on the topic. Let's start with the Washington State's one, WHICH I ALREADY QUOTED FOR YOU in the original posting... Wow- no preamble, no mention of a militia, here it is again: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"
>"Please quote the entire 2nd amendment, like this:"
That is not necessary, because the justification preamble has nothing to do with the right, which stands alone. The authors meant it that way (and there is tons of support showing it), courts have known it for centuries, and the Supreme Court has affirmed it more than once now.
>"As you can see, it puts the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia"
No it does not and it never has meant that and you are beating a dead horse. But you can keep on believing what you like, even if it doesn't make any sense...
>"the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states' Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states."
That is a pretty weak cry. In the Bills of Rights, the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (and we know how much THAT is followed already). As an aside, would these same people argue that the Department of Education should be eliminated because it [actually does] violate the 10th? Education is certainly NOT listed in the Constitution as a Federal power, in any way.
In any case the 10th doesn't overturn the 2nd. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That is a specifically listed Constitutional right of the PEOPLE, not the Fed, not the States.
And the 10th also doesn't overturn the 1st. It says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" which applies to the States too, who all wrote it into their State Constitutions. Yes, even in Washington State: http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagenc... Article 5 is freedom of speech " Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." Article 24 is right to bear arms " The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"
In any case, knowing HOW to build something doesn't make it legal to do something. It even says that RIGHT IN THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION. You can post information about poison to the Internet, but that doesn't mean you can legally make it, or legally administer it to someone. You can post information about a kewl motor vehicle, but that doesn't mean you can legally drive it on public roads.
Information is just that.... information.... this isn't a case of threats, slander, libel, state secrets of national security, or inciting a riot, or similar, so why is information about making PARTS of a firearm suddenly off-limits? It's what you might DO with that information that could be made criminal, not the mere existence or sharing of that information. And if it were illegal to just exist or be posted, what information or ideas are next to be made illegal? Shall we ban all videos about how most house locks can be "bumped"? Ban marshal arts books? Ban wiring diagrams about radios that could be used to broadcast on restricted airwaves? Ban articles on Socialism or any other hot topic?
>"The Next iPad Pros Will Shrink and Lose Their Headphone Jacks"
No, they won't just shrink, they will just get thinner- smaller batteries to be thinner, more fragile, harder to hold, more impossible to repair, less cooling mass, and more stupid. Next up, delete ALL physical ports and rely only on wireless charging, making sure there is no way to easily connect ANYTHING to the device. Oh, might as well delete the "useless" speakers and mic, too, and force people to use only wireless headphones and wireless mic...
>"That worked in every other mass immigration to the US so far. Why don't you think it would work in modern times?"
Because in the past we weren't a PC welfare state and people very much wanted to assimilate into the "American Dream." Sadly, that seems to be disappearing now (well, for quite a long time now). Divisiveness, isolation, distrust, identity politics, government overbearing, and victimhood are beginning to take their toll (perhaps even more on generations of existing Americans than recent immigrants). Our meddling in the mid-East has only made it that much worse.
>"A lot of his authoritarianism, like creative, expansive use of the regulatory power granted the executive by a cowardly,"
"His"? Which "His"? Obama? You do realize he was just as "into" authoritarianism and abuse of power as all other recent presidents. This expansion of the Executive branch "powers" has been going on for many, many decades now....
Oh, and the expansion of the Federal Government powers has been absolutely rampant for many generations. Way beyond what the Constitution demanded.
>"Here's a better idea: Socialize these folks. Show them that what they think they hate isn't what they think it is. Listen to them. Figure out why they are angry. Work to assuage their fears, and make sure that they have what they need to live happy, comfortable lives."
It might be a "better" idea, but it is completely and utterly impractical. Most are going to reject anything you try to show them. Some you might sway. But the reality is, it sounds like state-supported brainwashing (albeit of a relatively "good" kind). It would also cost a LOT of money and a WHOLE LOT of time. And for each "reprogrammed" person you release, another 10 will pop up somewhere else.
Security theater isn't doing much of anything right now except stripping people of their rights, turning us into a government police state, inconveniencing everyone, and costing taxpayers tons of money. What matters most was hardening the cockpits and perhaps adding more air marshals. Probably everything else could be thrown away (rolled back to pre 9/11).
>"The screen is so durability [sic] that it's been certified by UL"
"Durability" means many things. A plastic screen can give and bend. So yes, it might be generally, "unbreakable". But plastic is much, much, much softer than glass. So instead of a broken screen, you end up with a scratched-up-to-hell screen. So that doesn't mean it is more "durable" than high-tech glass.
"Which is better?" (AKA "Pick your poison") Might be the appropriate question.
>"Also, no one believes it would be better if the guy was shot."
Of course, in hindsight.
>" Any time a gun is used in anger is already very not good,"
Had he been shot, it most likely would not have been in "anger", it would have been in terror and self defense... and depending on the conditions and such, 100% justified. The teenager was extremely lucky.
>"the idea is to do so only when you are absolutely convinced that it's the best of a bunch of not-good options."
Agreed, but at the same time, when awakened by a stranger in your dark house at night, you might not have a lot of time to make such decisions. Had the teenager been there to harm or kill them, well, consider those homeowners very lucky...
>"Two of my favorite extensions are impossible in 57+:( Classic Theme Restorer and Tab Mix Plus."
Yep, first thing I wanted was "classic theme restorer" because I HATE tabs on top. Really, that is the only reason I want/need it. There is a workaround, however, by having a custom userChrome.css
>"No, they do it because that's how they were raised. People's "tastes" form at a young age."
Sorry, but your theory is wrong. I was not raised a vegetarian and agree with the OP. Now if you said for SOME people it depends on how they were raised, I would agree with you.
I came to post the same thing. I find it fascinating that so many people fail to understand that there are many people who don't like the TASTE or even the SMELL of meat, not just the concept. I won't eat "fake" meat anymore than real meat. I am not trying to "save the earth" or "purify my soul" or such nonsense.
>"I've had the following two settings set in Firefox ever since I discovered them and I never get autoplaying media:"
And I tried those on and off for many months and discovered that although they stop just as much autoplay as the addon does, they also blocked many sites from EVER working with ANY media. One good example (among many I discovered) was Spotify, which became unusable.... not the case with the addon. And no, I didn't keep a list of the dozens of other important places that stopped working because others were doing so in many Mozilla bug reports such as:
>"fact is, users have spoken. Firefox is on course to drop below 5% usage while Chrome is on course to top 60%."
Which is 100% only because Google plays "unfair" and pushed Chrome on people with non-stop harassment from their sites and services. Not conjecture; fact. I saw and experienced it. That isn't "users have spoken", it is "users took an easy path resistance" What is proves is that advertisement works. It has little to do with browser merits and everything to do with marketing- something Google's entire business model and world revolves around.
>"about:config, search for "autoplay" and set to "false". Done."
As I have pointed out in other posts, that option:
1) Is not reliable 2) Is not site-specific/configurable 3) Has no UI controls 4) Breaks many sites in a way that makes it impossible to play ANY media on them
That is why I suggest the addon. Try it, just make sure to set the about:config option back to the default first.
>"The "bounce back" was for useless stuff that provides little to no value,"
Yeah, like Adblock, Ublock Origin, HTML5 block, Nuke Anything, NoScript. Give me a break. There are TONS of useful and valuable addons. The ones that suffered the most were the ones tweaking the UI (a few I do miss) and hopefully that will recover too, once additional API's are released.
>"Firefox is slower than Chrome only coming ahead in Kraken/WebXPRT."
When I look at many different benchmarks from different people, what *I* see is a mixture of wins and loses, and mostly very narrow margins. For NORMAL, REAL-WORLD browsing, most users will notice no speed difference between current Firefox and current Chrome. It is like worrying about a car that can go 0-60 in 6 seconds and one that goes 0-60 in 5.75 seconds.... really doesn't matter that much.
>"And that "privacy" you so love - is non-existent. They just backdoor it through "experiments" which are exempt from their privacy policy and supposedly have privacy polices of their own, but in reality it's whatever data they want to harvest, they can, and will - with no oversight."
As far as I am aware, all those "experiments" in Firefox have a simple "OFF" setting in the preferences and/or in about:config. And without nags, and without reverting back on after updates. Meanwhile, Chrome is a Google mystery binary that does anything it wants - with no oversight AND no ability to look at the code. Google does seem to care about security at least as much as Mozilla. But privacy? Mozilla has taken that lead many times.
>"What's the easiest way to block the auto pop-out of videos when you scroll down? Whoever came up with that needs to be drug out back..."
Oh, indeed. It is like, "Let's do the most annoying thing we can think of to users- autoplay video"! "Oh drat, that is not annoying ENOUGH, so let's make it FOLLOW the user down the page!" What a great idea! Next up, autoplaying video AS A BACKGROUND?
>"Yet. Once Flash blocking became commonplace, advertisers switched to autoplaying HTML5 video. Once it becomes common to block HTML5 video, advertisers are likely to embrace these fallback methods."
Unfortunately, you might be right. This is why I keep saying that browsers need to be smarter and need tools to start trapping and throttling javascript tight loops, CPU usage, image flipping, etc. Seems like we have almost no control at all right now.
Slashdot Mirror
>Its pretty clear MoviePass is jsut a marketing firm"
Well duh, what else could turn "We were stupid and now going bankrupt and need more money quickly before we die so we are going to raise prices and put even more limitations on what you can watch and how often you can use our services" into:
'MoviePass' statement claims these changes are being made "to enhance discovery, and to drive attendance to smaller films and bolster the independent film community."'
>"Again, supply and demand go out the window when government subsidies get involved. There are times when this is a bad thing. Education is not one of those times"
Yes it most certainly *is* one of those times. When the government hands out money to just anyone for just any degree, the demand goes up, which increases the price. When they hand out "free" money, the colleges will also simply absorb that money as pure profit and raise their rates. And when consumers don't feel the pain of a price because it has been "subsidized", they often make unsound financial decisions. When Left-run colleges pile on more and more nonsense core curriculum like gender studies, and ethnic studies, PC stuff, etc, than students have to complete more courses, that all costs more money in the total degree. And when we encourage "everyone" to go to college at all costs, for ANY degree, which also lowering standards, that further pushes up the demand, which increases costs, and we end up with a supply of lots of people who have useless or meaningless degrees. And that erodes the value of a degree even further, so many people end up having to pursue EVEN MORE expense to step up to post-graduate degrees.
>"When I was in school. The right wing in America said it would be fine and the kids would [...]"
Sorry, reality check time. The reasons the tuitions went sky high are because the LEFT WING in America making so many grants, more guaranteed loans with much lower standards, requiring additional nonsense additions to the core curriculum, and especially "loaning" to those who could not pay and/or really had no business going to their selected school or perhaps college at all.
This is almost exactly what happened when the Government started subsidizing EMR (electronic medical records) systems and piling on their regulations- the street prices of the EMR's immediately went up exactly as high as the additional incentives and then went up even higher and higher with each round of regulations.
Free money isn't free, regulations cost lots of money, and risky loaning has consequences. Having read many of your posts, it is apparent that everything wrong in the world is the so-called "Right Wing's" fault, free market's fault, and/or the lack of Socialism, but I think you are misguided....
>"The 2nd Amendment explains that the reason for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is for "A well regulated Militia", and the purpose of well-regulated militias is for "the security of a free State". Those are conditions."
No it does not. And if you don't believe it, AND you like to ignore the Supreme Court, AND you ignore all the historical documents from the Founders, then start reading the various States' Constitutions on the topic. Let's start with the Washington State's one, WHICH I ALREADY QUOTED FOR YOU in the original posting... Wow- no preamble, no mention of a militia, here it is again: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"
>"Please quote the entire 2nd amendment, like this:"
That is not necessary, because the justification preamble has nothing to do with the right, which stands alone. The authors meant it that way (and there is tons of support showing it), courts have known it for centuries, and the Supreme Court has affirmed it more than once now.
>"As you can see, it puts the right to keep and bear arms within the context of a well-regulated militia"
No it does not and it never has meant that and you are beating a dead horse. But you can keep on believing what you like, even if it doesn't make any sense...
>" I choose the former. Most people are much, much too stupid to be trusted with guns."
" I choose the former. Most people are much, much too stupid to be trusted with cars."
" I choose the former. Most people are much, much too stupid to be trusted with power tools."
" I choose the former. Most people are much, much too stupid to be trusted with gasoline."
" I choose the former. Most people are much, much too stupid to be trusted with knives."
" I choose the former. Most people are much, much too stupid to be trusted with the Internet."
I could go on, but I think that makes the point...
>"the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states' Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states."
That is a pretty weak cry. In the Bills of Rights, the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (and we know how much THAT is followed already). As an aside, would these same people argue that the Department of Education should be eliminated because it [actually does] violate the 10th? Education is certainly NOT listed in the Constitution as a Federal power, in any way.
In any case the 10th doesn't overturn the 2nd. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That is a specifically listed Constitutional right of the PEOPLE, not the Fed, not the States.
And the 10th also doesn't overturn the 1st. It says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" which applies to the States too, who all wrote it into their State Constitutions. Yes, even in Washington State: http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagenc... Article 5 is freedom of speech " Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right." Article 24 is right to bear arms " The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"
In any case, knowing HOW to build something doesn't make it legal to do something. It even says that RIGHT IN THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION. You can post information about poison to the Internet, but that doesn't mean you can legally make it, or legally administer it to someone. You can post information about a kewl motor vehicle, but that doesn't mean you can legally drive it on public roads.
Information is just that.... information.... this isn't a case of threats, slander, libel, state secrets of national security, or inciting a riot, or similar, so why is information about making PARTS of a firearm suddenly off-limits? It's what you might DO with that information that could be made criminal, not the mere existence or sharing of that information. And if it were illegal to just exist or be posted, what information or ideas are next to be made illegal? Shall we ban all videos about how most house locks can be "bumped"? Ban marshal arts books? Ban wiring diagrams about radios that could be used to broadcast on restricted airwaves? Ban articles on Socialism or any other hot topic?
>"The Next iPad Pros Will Shrink and Lose Their Headphone Jacks"
No, they won't just shrink, they will just get thinner- smaller batteries to be thinner, more fragile, harder to hold, more impossible to repair, less cooling mass, and more stupid. Next up, delete ALL physical ports and rely only on wireless charging, making sure there is no way to easily connect ANYTHING to the device. Oh, might as well delete the "useless" speakers and mic, too, and force people to use only wireless headphones and wireless mic...
>"That worked in every other mass immigration to the US so far. Why don't you think it would work in modern times?"
Because in the past we weren't a PC welfare state and people very much wanted to assimilate into the "American Dream." Sadly, that seems to be disappearing now (well, for quite a long time now). Divisiveness, isolation, distrust, identity politics, government overbearing, and victimhood are beginning to take their toll (perhaps even more on generations of existing Americans than recent immigrants). Our meddling in the mid-East has only made it that much worse.
>"A lot of his authoritarianism, like creative, expansive use of the regulatory power granted the executive by a cowardly,"
"His"? Which "His"? Obama? You do realize he was just as "into" authoritarianism and abuse of power as all other recent presidents. This expansion of the Executive branch "powers" has been going on for many, many decades now....
Oh, and the expansion of the Federal Government powers has been absolutely rampant for many generations. Way beyond what the Constitution demanded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>"Here's a better idea: Socialize these folks. Show them that what they think they hate isn't what they think it is. Listen to them. Figure out why they are angry. Work to assuage their fears, and make sure that they have what they need to live happy, comfortable lives."
It might be a "better" idea, but it is completely and utterly impractical. Most are going to reject anything you try to show them. Some you might sway. But the reality is, it sounds like state-supported brainwashing (albeit of a relatively "good" kind). It would also cost a LOT of money and a WHOLE LOT of time. And for each "reprogrammed" person you release, another 10 will pop up somewhere else.
Security theater isn't doing much of anything right now except stripping people of their rights, turning us into a government police state, inconveniencing everyone, and costing taxpayers tons of money. What matters most was hardening the cockpits and perhaps adding more air marshals. Probably everything else could be thrown away (rolled back to pre 9/11).
>"The screen is so durability [sic] that it's been certified by UL"
"Durability" means many things. A plastic screen can give and bend. So yes, it might be generally, "unbreakable". But plastic is much, much, much softer than glass. So instead of a broken screen, you end up with a scratched-up-to-hell screen. So that doesn't mean it is more "durable" than high-tech glass.
"Which is better?" (AKA "Pick your poison") Might be the appropriate question.
>"But is it a full site isolation that also separates third party cookies per main site?"
You can already do this in Firefox now...
https://support.mozilla.org/en...
>"Let users whitelist domains they trust and run those without this feature. "
And/or, allow users to turn off "Site Isolation" when it isn't wanted, so that it doesn't gobble up all your resources (RAM and CPU) doing it...
I am all for features, but not all users and computers are the same. I know of several environments where "site isolation" is counter productive.
>"Also, no one believes it would be better if the guy was shot."
Of course, in hindsight.
>" Any time a gun is used in anger is already very not good,"
Had he been shot, it most likely would not have been in "anger", it would have been in terror and self defense... and depending on the conditions and such, 100% justified. The teenager was extremely lucky.
>"the idea is to do so only when you are absolutely convinced that it's the best of a bunch of not-good options."
Agreed, but at the same time, when awakened by a stranger in your dark house at night, you might not have a lot of time to make such decisions. Had the teenager been there to harm or kill them, well, consider those homeowners very lucky...
>"Two of my favorite extensions are impossible in 57+ :( Classic Theme Restorer and Tab Mix Plus."
Yep, first thing I wanted was "classic theme restorer" because I HATE tabs on top. Really, that is the only reason I want/need it. There is a workaround, however, by having a custom userChrome.css
https://support.mozilla.org/en...
>"No, they do it because that's how they were raised. People's "tastes" form at a young age."
Sorry, but your theory is wrong. I was not raised a vegetarian and agree with the OP. Now if you said for SOME people it depends on how they were raised, I would agree with you.
I came to post the same thing. I find it fascinating that so many people fail to understand that there are many people who don't like the TASTE or even the SMELL of meat, not just the concept. I won't eat "fake" meat anymore than real meat. I am not trying to "save the earth" or "purify my soul" or such nonsense.
>"I've had the following two settings set in Firefox ever since I discovered them and I never get autoplaying media:"
And I tried those on and off for many months and discovered that although they stop just as much autoplay as the addon does, they also blocked many sites from EVER working with ANY media. One good example (among many I discovered) was Spotify, which became unusable.... not the case with the addon. And no, I didn't keep a list of the dozens of other important places that stopped working because others were doing so in many Mozilla bug reports such as:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
1400625
1313233
1231886
1433987
1433987
etc
>"fact is, users have spoken. Firefox is on course to drop below 5% usage while Chrome is on course to top 60%."
Which is 100% only because Google plays "unfair" and pushed Chrome on people with non-stop harassment from their sites and services. Not conjecture; fact. I saw and experienced it. That isn't "users have spoken", it is "users took an easy path resistance" What is proves is that advertisement works. It has little to do with browser merits and everything to do with marketing- something Google's entire business model and world revolves around.
>"about:config, search for "autoplay" and set to "false". Done."
As I have pointed out in other posts, that option:
1) Is not reliable
2) Is not site-specific/configurable
3) Has no UI controls
4) Breaks many sites in a way that makes it impossible to play ANY media on them
That is why I suggest the addon. Try it, just make sure to set the about:config option back to the default first.
>"The "bounce back" was for useless stuff that provides little to no value,"
Yeah, like Adblock, Ublock Origin, HTML5 block, Nuke Anything, NoScript. Give me a break. There are TONS of useful and valuable addons. The ones that suffered the most were the ones tweaking the UI (a few I do miss) and hopefully that will recover too, once additional API's are released.
>"Firefox is slower than Chrome only coming ahead in Kraken/WebXPRT."
When I look at many different benchmarks from different people, what *I* see is a mixture of wins and loses, and mostly very narrow margins. For NORMAL, REAL-WORLD browsing, most users will notice no speed difference between current Firefox and current Chrome. It is like worrying about a car that can go 0-60 in 6 seconds and one that goes 0-60 in 5.75 seconds.... really doesn't matter that much.
>"And that "privacy" you so love - is non-existent. They just backdoor it through "experiments" which are exempt from their privacy policy and supposedly have privacy polices of their own, but in reality it's whatever data they want to harvest, they can, and will - with no oversight."
As far as I am aware, all those "experiments" in Firefox have a simple "OFF" setting in the preferences and/or in about:config. And without nags, and without reverting back on after updates. Meanwhile, Chrome is a Google mystery binary that does anything it wants - with no oversight AND no ability to look at the code. Google does seem to care about security at least as much as Mozilla. But privacy? Mozilla has taken that lead many times.
>"What's the easiest way to block the auto pop-out of videos when you scroll down? Whoever came up with that needs to be drug out back..."
Oh, indeed. It is like, "Let's do the most annoying thing we can think of to users- autoplay video"! "Oh drat, that is not annoying ENOUGH, so let's make it FOLLOW the user down the page!" What a great idea! Next up, autoplaying video AS A BACKGROUND?
This is as close as I can get to effectively dealing with it right now...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
>"Yet. Once Flash blocking became commonplace, advertisers switched to autoplaying HTML5 video. Once it becomes common to block HTML5 video, advertisers are likely to embrace these fallback methods."
Unfortunately, you might be right. This is why I keep saying that browsers need to be smarter and need tools to start trapping and throttling javascript tight loops, CPU usage, image flipping, etc. Seems like we have almost no control at all right now.
Reply to self; My numbers added to 8 instead of 7 :) Sorry, can't edit posts, dern it.