So I'd personally miss having them be able to measure that. And I know from experience it uses what you actually spend time watching to make recommendations (not just what you click on). I know this it heresy to say on HN, especially coming from someone who whines about gov surveillance as much as the next person, but I personally love YouTube's recommendation system. > Prevent YouTube from tracking your play/pause/seek activities. I have enormous respect for the work going into the profiler, both the functionality and design.) I've added some small things in to give it more information about my specific subsystem. (I work at Mozilla, but not on the profiler. I have heard of a number of people adopting it as their system profiler of choice for arbitrary workloads, not just browser-related ones. It has grown into a general profiler front-end, and continues to see significant improvements. It's my tool of choice even for non-Firefox scenarios, since it can load in perf profiles (and even Chrome profiles, though I haven't tried that). The Firefox Profiler is an amazing piece of work. The recent change is the old devtools profiler has been put out to pasture and replaced with the newer one (with presets configured appropriately for web content), and additionally the platform profiler is more integrated so you don't need an add-on or anything going to gives you the option to activate the built-in functionality. At some point, it was clearly so much better that they started enabling it to optionally focus on web content (though platform stuff is still accessible if you need it). In a separate project, a profiler for both content and browser UI was developed-that's the one at it has been seeing a ton of high quality work for quite a while now. It was pretty nice for its time, but its time was a long time ago. There was one in devtools for a long time that was aimed at web content. Sadly I've never actually had a client use this app with anything other than Chrome or Safari, so this is naturally a low-priority issue. But needless to say, for the first time in years, I found myself spending a non-trivial amount of development time in Chrome. For now my planned solution is to just write my own WYSIWYG editor, because TinyMCE ultimately offers a lot more than we actually need, and it was only a stopgap solution to get out a polished MVP. It's possible that the culprit is a bad polyfill or a Firefox-specific bug in TinyMCE, I haven't put much work into diagnosing it yet beyond verifying that TinyMCE is eating up all the CPU time. Once it's done, everything is nice and snappy, but it's like a 20-30 second wait after the wire even on my beefy 5900x. We failed to anticipate just how large some of the templates clients would be making, so sometimes when they open a template they end up having a couple hundred of these editors hidden behind drag and drop enabled accordions.įirefox chokes on the initial TinyMCE calls for these large templates, taking quite a long time to fully render the page. I went with it because I was able to implement it in an afternoon, their licensing was compatible with our use, and I had a tight deadline. For writing steps and substeps, I use a WYSIWYG HTML editor called TynyMCE. I have a web app that allows customers to make templates for their standard operating procedures that they pull from our main product.
But I still think it has some catching up to do with Chrome. It is my primary browser for both development and personal use. I've been shilling for Firefox for years.
0 kommentar(er)
