I am reading it from a desktop and I had to do a double take when I instantly noticed how it was techcruch but didn't have the epically annoying fixed sidebars and delayed loading ads messing with my scroll bar. I came here to suggest we add /amp to the end of all techcrunch submissions. Title, content and a single static ad at the end, if all news sites were like this I would not complain.
Wait, but using the non-AMP version is a decision too. Why do you get to make that one instead? Shouldn't the person posting the link get some discretion?
Principle of least surprise. techcrunch.com has a default experience, amp is secondary. Since we can't all read each others minds the default behavior should be to use the ...default.
Why is there always so much hate for amp on HN? I'm on a PC and I vastly prefer these pages to the huge/bloated default pages offered by so many publishers. Using the TC page linked in the original post as an example, if I turn on Ghostery it blocks 22 trackers! https://imgur.com/a/iTnlT
It's not all about privacy and trackers, but about search monopoly that well might abuse it's power to become content provider monopoly as well using the fact they have fastest CDN.
Though it's less of a problem with self-hosted AMP, but still a problem because it's still tech from company that might choose to improve web and can very well do it with Chrome market share, but instead decide to replace it with own thing.
I have good reasons to not trust Google because over years they provided worse experience for Firefox on their own services and it's still annoyingly true on Android.
Oh wow, I did not even notice this until you pointed it out.
So the solution is SO bad that the "amp" tag even becomes part of the URL?!
Now THAT is really weird ... well aside from me disliking AMP anyway, that ... hmmm. We can send people to the moon, probably soon elswhere but ... we have to denote that ... we use AMP by ... a appended string called 'amp'.