Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ledauphin 618 days ago
it's at the very least an evil plot to stop users (and extension authors) from _making their own decisions_ about the efficiency trade-off.

which is really just absurd when you think about it. I don't care about another hour of battery life, but even if I did, I'd be perfectly happy if Chrome just told me "hey these extensions aren't very battery-efficient!" and I got to make my own decision about that.
2 comments
shiroiushi 618 days ago
>I don't care about another hour of battery life

If you're stuck having to run a ton of shitty JS code with ad malware in it, because your web browser doesn't allow you to effectively block it, that's probably going to cost you more in battery life than the overhead needed by MV2 to block that stuff.

link
mvkel 618 days ago
This just sounds like Hobson's choice. There's only one right answer, and Google is making it on behalf of the user. Fine.
link