- If the server is responding with JSON, the client has to parse, decode, and validate the JSON. Then it has to transform it into HTML DOM nodes. Finally, it can inject them into the DOM.
- If the server is responding with a bespoke non-JSON data structure, it's the same situation as above except even more work because a third-party, non-standard library has to decode this structure into something (most likely JSON) and then transform the JSON into HTML nodes, etc. etc.
- If the server is responding with straight-up HTML, the client uses the browser's HTML parser to directly transform it into HTML nodes and inject it into the page. And by the way, the browser engine is essentially a function that is highly optimized for exactly this use case–parsing bytes into DOM nodes.
'We' might use the same API but it's widely accepted that generally the same API doesn't work for all contexts. See https://samnewman.io/patterns/architectural/bff/#general which details the many well-known problems with having a single API for different contexts.
Yes but isn’t this the beauty of decentralized protocols? The cost is spread amongst all, it doesn’t require one entity to shoulder the cost for everyone.
It’s not really decentralized in that way. If you’re loading a bunch of pages in your mobile browser, your device is paying the power consumption cost of deserializing, parsing, and running all that JS. It doesn’t save on that because some other user also did it.
Yeah but when you're reading the actual source code you're not thinking in terms of bytes, you're looking and files and line counts. Htmx is deliberately maintained as a single, no-dependency file of about 5000loc. The maintainers are of the opinion that it reduces complexity, and I tend to agree.
Monero ideally combined with something like this but one or the other would also be an improvement:
>Brave uses a blind token protocol based on Privacy Pass, which decouples payment identity from service usage. These privacy-preserving subscription credentials allow the browser to verify you have a valid purchase of a premium product (like Origin) without learning anything about you.
It depends. If you have a Claude Code subscription then it defaults to an hour, if you use Claude via an API or third party then it defaults to 5 minutes. You can opt-in to the 1 hour TTL but it obviously costs more.
> 5-minute cache write tokens are 1.25 times the base input tokens price
> 1-hour cache write tokens are 2 times the base input tokens price
That article is well over a year old. The current privacy FAQ right now explicitly states:
> We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.
Went to that FAQ again, and it contains false claims. They say:
> we’re built with privacy as the default.
Which is not the case, they are built with monitoring, calling-home and transmission of quite a bit of telemetry as the default.
> We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.
They know my imprecise location by default, since they have their browser send my IP to them. I don't know whether the host of other information affords a statistical determination of age or gender; but the supposed "non-personal data" they collect, when correlated with data available to other companies like Alphabet, may well allow determining age and gender or even full personal identification.
> We never sell your personal data.
It doesn't say we never sell your data, period.
It doesn't say we never sell the results of processing your personal data.
It doesn't say we never _provide_ personal data collected from you (i.e. not through a sale). Nor could it, because the US government assumes the power to secretly obtain data about people from tech companies. The legal mechanism is in place (NSL)'s, and we know it has been in massive use, thanks to the Snowden leaks.
They pulled back on the websife change after backlash, but trust takes a long time to rebuild.
Also, don't go by the FAQ. Go by the actual terms and conditions.
Remember part of their original response to the controversy was to say "we don't sell your data, we just give it out in exchange for money" so I'm inclined to ignore anything from them that says "we don't sell" as they clearly don't know what it means.
The trust was lost because of the public's misunderstanding of the change. It was updated as a response to the overly broad legal definitions of "data sales" under laws like the CCPA. As your own link says, Mozilla explicitly stated:
> It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice.
Mozilla lost trust rewriting their policy, and even more trust when they blamed their users for being "confused"[0] IMO. They're the ones with the lawyers and the sponsorships. All blame for "confusion" rests upon the party with the legal upper hand.
Do you know what the "overly broad definition" of "sell data" they cited was? It was "to exchange personal information for money or other things of value".
That's not overly broad. That's what selling is. That's what they told us they were doing. So they told us they were selling our data.
https://blog.janestreet.com/can-you-reverse-engineer-an-asic...
reply