And most of it useless dreck to track your usage, identity, PC stats and ads. Talk about over engineering.
The average web page is now roughly the same size as the full install image for the classic DOS game Doom, apparently. This is according to Ronan Cremin, a lead engineer with Afilias Technologies and dotMobi's representative for the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium). Cremin points to data from the HTTP Archive showing that, at …
Oh, you may want to check out Google's search page, that seemingly innocent blank and empty page.
Do a page source view and sit back in horror. If you were to print out the source code behind it*, that page alone is 35 pages of A4 (without any further external resources it pulls in), and a LOT of people have that as their browser home page.
* No, I didn't. Print to PDF works just as well :).
You mean like this dpmsrv.com, regmedia.com, adnxs.com, googleservices.com, admedo.com, googlesyndication.com, googletagservices.com:http://i.imgur.com/sdwzez4.png
The news services are the worst, downloading a huge image and a bunch of scripts at the top of the page each and every time, all just to read a one paragraph article. And don't get me going on those one inch talking flash ads that you can't disable.
The wife told me once of a particular publication of a book, in Germany, that garnered some criticism as, around a third of the way through, our heroes sat down for a delicious meal of branded, canned soup.
The book was Sourcery, by Terry Pratchett.
With that in mind, I'd say that the practice of inserting adverts into unrelated text at arbitrary points has a worrying weight of precedent.
Hahahaha, yes, I remember those. Rumor was the ad writer got the two preceding pages or something like that. (The one that stuck with me was a mil sci-fi novel which detoured into "The general is worrying about his supply lines. Oh, don't we have it easy, we can just go into the kitchen an open a delicous cup of $BRAND".) Go back another decade, they advertised council bonds.
I have no idea what rate of return of investment you expect when you need to hand-tailor the ad for every book. (Or they had lots of interns they needed to keep busy.)
Of course it's quicker, you have 'm' instead of 'www' so it weighs a lot less and with the same amount of electrons to push it through the tubes, it can go that much faster..
Specifically, going from three 'double u's to one single 'm' is a huge saving of five letter equivalents out of six to its bare minimum, a highly efficient rewriting technique, second only to the transformation of 'floccinaucinihilipilification' to 'WTF?'.
And of course, the electrons escape out of the bottom legs of the 'm' much faster, whereas they're trapped in the 'w's until enough of them amass and they can climb out. Which slows down the page loading even more, as any fule kno.
Unless you're in Australia, where the opposite applies. Trust me, I have MCSE certification and DevOps qualifications and know about these things.
" I have MCSE certification and DevOps qualifications and know about these things."
I once suffered severe head trauma and developed DevOps qualifications, but fortunately, I recovered fully.
Otherwise, I might have been MCSE certified.
(Eh, sorry, that just popped into my head... maybe suffering a relapse?)
And of course, the electrons escape out of the bottom legs of the 'm' much faster, whereas they're trapped in the 'w's until enough of them amass and they can climb out.
You don't need to switch to 'm' to fix this; quantum annealing will do the trick. Just turn up the color temperature on your monitor and the electrons will tunnel through the sides of the 'w's. That's how the DWave machine works.
The rest of your comment is spot-on, though.
Technically, W should be double V (and in some languages like Spanish they DO say that--as in "doble ve") As for why not double n, probably because M comes BEFORE N in the alphabet AND a capital M looks nothing like two capital N's side by side unlike with W which DOES look like 2 V's.
PS. Why DOES English say double U instead of double V? Is it because of cursive script where it IS a double U?
In the 6th century AD the Roman script started to be used to write the version of English spoken at the time. But Latin does not have the W-sound. So that was written an VV, where V is the way the romans chiseled their U-sound.
(The compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, lemma W)
"The HTTP Archive report places the average web page at around 2,301KB. Most of the page bloat is due to images, which take up on average 1,463KB of data. Next is script code, which occupies 360KB, followed by video, averaging 200KB per page on average."
That leaves about 300K for text and ... not sure. Even with markup, 300K of text is a lot. Are people pulling in 290K of CSS for every page?
I save, for personal use, the occasional worthwhile web wisdom (aka www) and then edit it to clean text.
The average el Reg piece is 2K to 3K bytes, but up to 10K for extended articles. Other publications are 5K to 15K bytes.
So most of our bandwidth goes on pictures and video, which add little to the occasional well written piece; and mostly to adverts which add nothing.
I resent the way adverts dominate the byte count, with their feeble excuse that they are paying the bills.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019