zlacker

>>jayden+(OP)
What gets me the thumbnails are now so big, they're blurry since the images need to be stretched to fit now!

The preview is 530x300px on a 1920x1080 screen vs the image shown being 336x188px

How this passed any sort of QA is beyond me

>>iMerNi+X5
They clearly need to conserve bandwidth for the most important assets - the 12 whole megabytes of Javascript.

>>jshear+a7
Genuine question. I’m assuming that, since YouTube is owned by one of the largest tech companies in the world that they’ve optimized their delivered JS to only what is necessary to run the page.

What on the YouTube home page could possibly require 12MB of JS alone? Assuming 60 characters per line, that’s 200k lines of code? Obviously ballpark and LoC != complexity, but that seems absurd to me.

>>jmb99+gl
Webpages are dumptrucks for every bad feature anyone ever thought up and are in a constant state of trying to re-framework their way out of the complete mess of utils that get shipped by default. Need a gadget that implements eye tracking via sidechannels? Yeah, they got that. And then justify that with "analytics" or anti-fraud and abuse, and no "click jacking" or whatever crap, and roll it times 1000.