griD@feddit.de to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 7 months agoWe've come a long way babyi.imgur.comimagemessage-square103fedilinkarrow-up11.62Karrow-down133 cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11.59Karrow-down1imageWe've come a long way babyi.imgur.comgriD@feddit.de to Programmer Humor@lemmy.mlEnglish · 7 months agomessage-square103fedilink cross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareSokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·7 months agoI’m out of the loop. What happened? Did someone decompile their code and find definitive proof of a throttle for Firefox?
minus-squaregriD@feddit.deOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15·edit-27 months agosome explanation To be fair, they used setTimeout() and not thread.sleep() because the latter isn’t possible out of the box in JS ^^
minus-squareWild_Mastic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up14·edit-27 months ago Users who have ad blockers installed may experience suboptimal viewing Yeah let me turn off the adblocker just for having an even more suboptimal viewing due to ads. They’re lunatics.
minus-squareThorned_Rose@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up3·7 months agoThanks for the explainer! Also, Google’s response is such a crock of shit.
I’m out of the loop. What happened? Did someone decompile their code and find definitive proof of a throttle for Firefox?
some explanation
To be fair, they used setTimeout() and not thread.sleep() because the latter isn’t possible out of the box in JS ^^
Yeah let me turn off the adblocker just for having an even more suboptimal viewing due to ads. They’re lunatics.
Thanks for the explainer! Also, Google’s response is such a crock of shit.