Chrome will aggressively throttle background tabs - <AUTHOR> http://blog.strml.net/2017/01/chrome-56-now-aggressively-throttles.html <comment><USER2> I run a real time charting platform for Bitcoin traders (like those using BitMEX) and the app does a lot of updating/refreshing. I recently learned of the visibilitychange API and managed to make huge improvements in the app's performance when running in the background - on the order of ~75% reduction in CPU usage when running in the background. [1]

        var doVisualUpdates = true;

        document.addEventListener('visibilitychange', function(){
          doVisualUpdates = !document.hidden;
        });

Basically, you can use this to determine if your tab is running "in the background" and avoid redrawing/refreshing components to show updates that won't ever be seen.

[1] [https://twitter.com/cryptowat_ch/status/817502626896089090](https://twitter.com/cryptowat_ch/status/817502626896089090)

<comment><USER3> Why should the browser rely on the webpage developer to tell it to not redraw things in a tab that isn't the visible one? The browser by default shouldn't redraw content in a tab that isn't visible. This seems like the most obvious thing in the world.

<comment><USER4> Because some websites might still need to work when not in focus. E.g. If you are showing animations or videos in a window, but the user wants to answer an IM in another window without interrupting the animations.

<comment><USER5> But then if you switch windows or tabs, the timer for the animations in the tab that is now invisible can be stopped, surely??

Why redraw an invisible window? In any ordinary paint routine, you query for the invalidated rectangle and only redraw what you must. In the case of pages that are out of view, then nothing needs redrawing.

Processes that are busy doing things they need not (like redrawing on a timer, polling a mouse) is why Apple starting highlighting offenders in macOS (what is hogging the battery??) and why I don't use Chrome on it - it just gobbles power keeping all of those tabs alive.

Hopefully these new changes will help.

<comment><USER2> OP here. In my case, the CPU saved was mostly React updating its virtual DOM. Yes, the browser doesn't do repaints when the tab is in the background. But there's plenty of other work that is done before repaints when using a library like React.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hi, this is Alexander. I'm an engineer on Chromium team working on scheduling and on background tab throttling in particular.

Firstly, I want to make clear that we are not shipping this in Chrome 56. We have enabled throttling as an experiment in beta channel to measure impact and collect feedback from web devs. We will aim to ship it in Chrome 57, subject to further feedback.

In response to concerns voiced we will disable aggressive throttling when active websocket connection is present. Tabs playing audio are already unthrottled.

We will also consider more signals to use in exempting a page from this throttling: metatag, pinned tabs, permission to show notifications from user. Please leave a comment in the bug (crbug.com/650594) if you have other suggestions.

Looking forward to your feedback, Alexander.

<comment><USER7> I'd like to see the user better informed of hot (active) tabs. Just like there's an audio icon to help the user track down which tab is making noise, there should also be some mechanism to let the user know that a tab is more active than usual.

I'd recommend a different background color for the tab, except that I'd also like to see (sign in) profiles have distinct background colors to aid the user in keeping their profiles straight.

<comment><USER8> Color change on the tab would be nice - maybe have it slowly grow more red (and perhaps add an option to change the color as well - for colorblind folks) - then start blinking - then burst into flame...

<comment><USER9> I think Samsung tried that approach

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's awesome to see Chrome trying to improve performance for people with many tabs open, which is many of us.

I use a LOT of tabs, and the best plugin has been The Great Suspender. Highly recommend it for anyone who wants memory & CPU back and keeps many tabs/windows open at once: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the- great-suspende...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great- suspender/klbibkeccnjlkjkiokjodocebajanakg)

<comment><USER11> I meet many tab hoarders (always open a new one, never close any, ending up with hundrets), but just can't wrap my head around it!

I hate having more than 6-7 simultaneously open because it gets increasingly harder to keep an overview of what you're doing. The same applies for IDE tabs or windows. Too much of them and finding the right one becomes increasingly hard, and losing the thread more likely.

<comment><USER12> When I am doing coding work, I often have a ton of tabs open. I will keep different documentation tabs open to the relevant sections. I will keep some tabs with answers on StackOverflow.

My open tabs are kinda like my working memory. I could close them and reopen them as needed, but it is easier to just click a tab then to try to find the thing again. In addition, sometimes the pages I am looking at have dynamic navigation, and closing and reopening the page will require a good deal of navigation to find the section I was looking at. Plus, the overall time to reload the content, where if I just have the tab open there is no download time.

Also, the tab icons help me remember what I was looking at. I will often keep tabs open for what I wanted to read later.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, I basically do the same thing, but that hardly ever requires 10 tabs for me. When that happens, finding tabs becomes especially harder once their width starts to shrink.

As for read-later, I usually pull them into the bookmarks bar (top level, directly visible) to free up some space.

<comment><USER13> I use one-tab.com; works fantastically for me. Not a huge stretch to say it changed my life.

<comment><USER11> For what it's worth, there's a similar feature currently available in Firefox Test Pilot: [https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab- center](https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center)

<comment><USER14> Are you taking about tab center? That thingy had a number of issues last I checked, I especially remember there was something weird about the layout of it. I think it extended all the way up on the side of the menu bar. This looked weird to me (and I think UI is overrated) and makes the toolbars slide when I open/close the tab drawer.

I'd recommend using one of the extensions instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I like the change as a general idea but there obviously needs to be a manual override. Like, I don't want websites to access my camera without permission but obviously I want to allow _some_ websites to do that. A similar permission could be used here and is perfectly backwards compatible:

1\. a tab exceeds its quota and throttling kicks in;

2\. you visit the tab to check why it stopped working;

3\. you get a permission pop up (like all others) once you visit the tab again, asking you whether you want to allow it unlimited resource usage, noting that it'll decrease battery life of your device.

<comment><USER16> Or just ask for the permission when you first open the page, the same way uber asks for your location.

www.foobar.com wants to:

"Run in the background unthrottled"

<comment><USER17> That's less "backward compatible" than the suggestion to pop up a dialog on switching to the page, because the page needs to know to ask for the permission.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. After all, backward compatibility is how we got the semantics of an alert() dialog stopping all JS execution.

<comment><USER18> These days, due to my annoyance with pages reloading themselves when switching to a tab, I'm really not interested in packing more functionality into the whole tab switching mechanism. Like the back button, it should not be visible to web developers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What are we supposed to do about stuff this? Like I wrote a video game [https://play.basketball-gm.com/](https://play.basketball-gm.com/) that lets you open multiple tabs for viewing multiple screens even while simulation is occurring in another tab. But Chrome recently stopped running the simulation if it's in a background tab. Putting my simulation code in a Shared Worker would be nice, except Safari and IE will never support it and it seems likely to be deprecated soon. Service Workers kill anything that takes over 30 seconds, so no long running processing allowed. What do I do? Go back to writing desktop apps that nobody will install?

<comment><USER20> It would be dodgy hack, but another HN comment made reference to a statement that tabs playing audio are always considered "foregrounded": [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink- dev/-dmrNAFHd-4/discussion)

<comment><USER21> Their own Google Play would be impacted otherwise. Good to hear, since the only thing I use Chrome for is Google Play (and any other, one-off, old- fashioned sites which require Flash). Why in the world does Google still require Flash for... anything?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How about displaying more info about the "weight" of a page, when it comes to downloaded assets, cookies / local storage, RAM and CPU usage? I know there are ass backwards and fugly ways to see all of that, but why can't I see a list of all open tabs, with columns of such info which I get to define and sort as I please? Why not have the option to that info pop up when hovering over a tab, and to show notification icons for certain thresholds, user definable with sensible defaults? There's a lot of things browsers should be doing. So what if 100 people don't care; the one person that does become more aware of what is going on more than makes up for it. *

And just let us allow tabs to grab all the resources they want on a opt-in basis. Why not?

* Before anyone brings up the inevitable economic argument - it wouldn't take a lot of man hours to do these things, I dare say it would just take one or two persons who are capable to be willing and _allowed_ to do them. And compared to all sorts of things that browsers vendors made and get scrapped, you at least know tabs will always use ram, CPU and load assets over the network, so it's not ever going to be completely useless.

<comment><USER23> You do know that Chrome has a task manager that will display memory, CPU and network usage for each tab right?

<comment><USER22> Yeah, make that "allow docking the task manager". Though I still miss a total about how many bytes got downloaded, average speed etc. I also miss it in other browsers (though I should have made that more clear, I wasn't meaning to "bash Chrome" \-- this frustrates me since the departure of old Opera, with all browsers, I love the powerful web API stuff but I hate the user interface directions).

And to repeat myself, I really do miss something akin to the icon that displays which tabs are playing sound -- not for myself, but because it would allow people to notice the difference between bloated and well crafted pages more easily.

I appreciate they prefer to automatically decide what is best, but I would prefer more gauges, at least as an accessible option. If you hide something behind an "advanced" label, it will just scare people off for no reason. It's not like configurations dialog aren't kinda barren and padded as is. Just fix that and then just put things there, neatly categorized and maybe even searchable, and explain them. People can drive cars and vote for politicians, but we can't trust them to read? Just about any image viewer or video player seems to think more highly of people than browsers of all things do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is of course a really good thing, but I feel this is not enough.

The browser has increasingly become universal platform. On the one hand, this means applications written for browsers are automatically cross platform. But this also makes the browsers more and more complicated. Even the simplest webpage takes a significant hit in resource usage.

Maybe we need some sort of "reduced web". A browser that only supports the essential features to display webpages. No WebGL, canvas, notification, WebRTC, locations, WebMIDI, or WebUSB (seriously!). And I don't mean just disable these features, but rather design the browser without them. Then we could do most of our browsing in the minimal browser, and only fire up chrome for the more demanding web apps.

<comment><USER25> FYWD: [https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/ubkidr7yuc7azg9hdnl7lq](https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/ubkidr7yuc7azg9hdnl7lq)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Personally speaking (That means I'm speaking for myself), I could absolutely care less about the plight of the developer who wants their page to run stuff in the background.

If you really think I should be running something in the background, you should ask Chrome for that permission so Chrome can ask me. If I say yes, then feel free, but no website should have this for free.

<comment><USER27> > no website should have this for free.

Why not? Your applications on the desktop can run background tasks without your approval. Your phone's applications on iOS and Android can run background tasks without your approval. The web has _tons_ of web applications some of which more complex than stand alone apps. So why wouldn't they be afforded the same?

Asking would be a bit of a UX nightmare. You'll have so few users enable it. It's a pattern they've never seen before.

<comment><USER28> > Your phone's applications on iOS and Android can run background tasks > without your approval.

Apps on iOS can only do this for a short time interval before they will receive a SIGSTOP and are no longer allowed to execute at all; and while you can react to push notifications, you are given a very limited time interval in which you can do that locally. You can manage downloads in the background, but those are passed off to a dedicated download process to make sure you aren't doing anything complex (as a download should not be a major CPU drain: it is really just something that has to respond to I/O events). You can play audio or track location actively in the background, but the system makes this _incredibly obvious_ by placing an omnipresent and highly intrusive banner at the top of the screen, telling you which application is doing that. You can manage bluetooth devices in the background, but if you are paired with a bluetooth device then the user probably understands what is happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is going to destroy HLS playback in a background tab. Playing back HLS with JS is already a very cpu intensive, time-dependent process and we've already struggled with the current background tab throttling - a delay like this will all but kill playback or make it stutter to the point you'll wish it's dead instead. I commend Chrome for driving web standards but they've been a huge bully recently.

<comment><USER30> I don't believe it will. From [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink- dev/-dmrNAFHd-4/discussion) :

 _Background tabs usually do not have a visible impact for user (tabs with audio are always considered foregrounded)._

<comment><USER31> Is that a workaround/loophole then? A tab can play silent or very quiet audio and then run unthrottled?

<comment><USER32> Chrome's audio detection is quite smart if I'm not mistaken. A tiny amount of sound is usually seen as 'silent' too, since it'd be practically inaudible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Can we aggressively throttle memory usage? Why does it require 300-500MB of ram PER TAB?

<comment><USER34> Does Chrome only use RAM if it thinks it is available? (i.e. if it starts detecting that other process are running and eating up RAM, will it use less?)

<comment><USER35> It does try to reduce what it can in low memory situations (less "pre" optimizations like prefetching, prerendering, even dns prefetches and stuff, V8 gets more eager to throw out "potentially unneeded" code, tabs get suspended and written to disk, heuristics can get shut off, etc...), but it can't change what the page does.

If a browser tab wants to store 300MB of data in RAM, or wants to throw a shitton of stuff at the DOM, Chrome needs to oblige.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why can't Chrome add 'reload tabs only when focused' ??!!!

A simple, trivial feature that's in every browser on Earth, except bloody Chrome.

Its been requested pretty much forever and Chrome takes a perverse delight in ignoring the most requested features, because of course they know better than their users.

other examples - multi row tabs, customizable fonts, and actually giving a damn about memory usage.

Chrome is a memory hog and instead of optimizing that, the solution is to kill background tabs. This is very similar to Android's logic - instead of trying to fix rampant 'Android system' and 'Play services' wakelocks which cause massive battery drain, the fix was to forcefully suspend apps via Doze, which of course ignores the real problem entirely.

</comment><comment><USER37> Archived copy that doesn't require JS:

[https://archive.fo/3ph1z](https://archive.fo/3ph1z)

<comment><USER38> Excellent work! Kind of funny the article mentions

> This will break the web.

But apparently blogger requires javascript just to render static content.

<comment><USER39> Oh, it's awful, I agree. This is the nicest layout but the JS is terrible.

I've reverted to a plain-HTML layout.

<comment><USER39> To whoever downvoted this: I am the author of the post above, and in response I've removed the JS-centric layout.

<comment><USER40> Thanks! Not a stickler, or one of the complainers, but I appreciate less scripting, and responsive devs. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is great. Remember that most people will benefit from this change and I love that Google is being aggressive about it.

If your backgrounded browser app needs 100% of the CPU, you've made a mistake.

</comment><comment><USER42> Why not have a "this page would like to perform work in the background [allow|block]" notification?

<comment><USER43> I'd guess it's because most users would have no idea what to choose, would have no idea what the affect of each choice would be, and if you add more text to explain it, most users will not read it. Pop up the notification too often and it becomes a nuisance.

Better IMO to bury the choice deep in settings or something, for power users, if you even offer the choice at all.

<comment><USER22> > I'd guess it's because most users would have no idea what to choose

Sounds like you could kill two birds with one stone: allow a non-lame web _and_ encourage users to learn what that means. We can't complain about tech illiterate users with one corner of the mouth and then make them decide what goes with the other.

> if you add more text to explain it, most users will not read it

They're not users. They're the blight on the back of users. Why cater to them? Is someone who looks left and right before crossing the street a "power pedestrian", too?

" _This tab wants to use a lot of [RAM /CPU/GPU] while it is in the background, is that cool with you?_

 _If you don 't know what this means, it's best to select no. Fuck that site anyway for using a lot of resources without making it obvious that it's doing something heavy, or asking first, or explaining what is going on. If they don't like users clicking no or even navigating away from the page, that's their problem. If you read this far, click here to claim your Avid Reader Achievement Trophy._"

Not bad for a first draft?

<comment><USER44> > They're not users. They're the blight on the back of users. Why cater to > them?

actually they are about 90%+ of users

[https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill- levels/](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/)

<comment><USER22> Fine, and most "webmasters" are really just hack frauds. On my planet, it's their job to get a room and ours to burn it.

edit: Usage implies intentionality. Intentionality implies awareness. Not being some super guru, but more awareness than "is text, won't read". Therefore, while the drive to shovel hardware on people, to create needs you then get to fill, did indeed bring all sorts of people who now get called users to the table, I don't consider them such. It's like someone who has a seizure on dance floor is not dancing, or like someone you forced to be somewhere is not "visiting that place". And I know people don't find it rude to just ignore a claim of how something _ought_ to be with "but this is how it is, which is why it can and must be that way", which is why I say what I say. If someone does bad things and won't discuss them, it's absolutely up to the people who are aware and care to act. If you don't understand poetic language unless it's flowery that's your problem. So yes, I stand by what I said, just not by what it might evoke in the minds of some readers.

<comment><USER45> This sounds a lot like the arguments in the 80s about how GUIs were bad because they let anyone use a computer. Empathy makes it easier to write good software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Pretty annoying if you want a game to continue running in the background :/

<comment><USER47> Just what I was thinking. RIP Cookie Clicker.

<comment><USER48> Wouldn't Cookie Clicker be doing updates based on time deltas? There's no guarantees a timer will fire after the desired time even without this update. Or am I missing a feature that requires it to be able to continually process in the background?

<comment><USER47> CC only runs while you have its tab open. I'd assume there's some function that updates state regularly (even if it's only the regular auto-saves).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The Intent to Ship [1] writes that all six platforms will be affected (Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, and Android WebView). Yet how does this affect Chrome OS background tabs, which _" work entirely in the background and run even after you close the Chrome browser"_? [2]

[1] [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink-d...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/blink- dev/XRqy8mIOWps/LvBUbWbxAQAJ) [2] [https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1184722?hl=en](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1184722?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER50> That's a pain in the butt, I wrote a cnc toolpath computer and I don't want the computation to stop while you browse reddit

</comment><comment><USER51> Can't we use serviceWorkers to workaround this? That's what they were created for.

I have a webaudio side project that works nicely even on the background using serviceWorkers for timing. I'm hoping it will be the same on 56.

<comment><USER52> Can you elaborate? What does service workers give you for your web audio project that doesn't work without service works?

I'm curious because I have a HTML5 audio web app that works great, except when running on mobile in the background.

<comment><USER51> In my project the serviceWorker only has a setInterval that will trigger the main loop.

When the setInterval was in the main code it would slow down, a lot, when the tab was on background. That made the generated music go slow aswell. With the serviceWorker the clock is rock solid, even when the background app can't keep up, the timing is solid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Seems to me this is still just an intent-to-implement, i.e., the discussion about the feasibillity of the feature and the exact implementation details is still very much ongoing. It might be useful to contribute to the discussion at [1]. An outline about the implementation details is given in [2].

The dev team also acknowledges this is a breaking change for the web and considers it an "intervention" according to [3]. This admittedly doesn't mean much, but at least gives some basic standard of procedure that sites can follow to keep impact on a minimum.

Also noteable is this bit from the current discussion: _We mitigate this by only throttling timer tasks; other tasks such as loading tasks will continue to run unthrottled._

Sounds to me as if this could mean that IO events are not effected. So sites that currently poll for notifications in the background might work around the throttle but using long polling or web socket push instead.

[1] [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink- dev/-dmrNAFHd-4/discussion)

[2] [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCUeGfr2xzZ67SFt2yZjNeaI...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCUeGfr2xzZ67SFt2yZjNeaIcXGp2Td6KHN7bI02ySo/edit#heading=h.fu3qclnznmk5)

</comment><comment><USER54> This is probably a good thing in the long run. Timer-based callbacks can generally be replaced by events, which only trigger when there is actually work to be done. Many JS timers I've seen are needlessly busy-polling.

Whether this implementation affects just timer callbacks or all background processing (eg websocket data events) is a bit ambiguous - this blog post seems to suggest major apps like Slack and Discord will break, but surely they are using websockets and not continuously polling for new data.

</comment><comment><USER55> There was an firefox extension that did this as well, but it's been discontinued: [https://github.com/palant/suspendbackgroundtabs](https://github.com/palant/suspendbackgroundtabs)

I wrote my own script that does this: [https://github.com/kahing/bin/blob/master/throttle](https://github.com/kahing/bin/blob/master/throttle)

</comment><comment><USER56> > Popular applications like Slack and Discord, as well as our own application > (BitMEX, a Bitcoin trading site) will be hugely and adversely affected by > this.

Good, if web apps will become less reliant on doing everything in the server, so I will be able to open up multiple tabs without slowing down a computer.

Finally, a reason to move to Chrome! (Currently a Firefox user)

</comment><comment><USER57> About time. I have been using extensions such as one-tab to prevent background tabs from draining memory.

<comment><USER58> I've got some bad news for you. This change has nothing to do with memory consumption of background tabs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I am surprised nobody mentioned battery saving mode in Opera. It throttles background tabs similar way, but not so aggressively.

This will be great thing. Right now my Chrome eats about 10% of CPU, mostly Skype, Slack, Calendar... With Opera it is bellow 1% and I get much better battery life.

<comment><USER60> Even in Opera it is less about throttling cpu usage, and more about coalescing wakeups/timer interrupts.

There should never be a situation where background tab cant even get a 1 second timer running reliably, unless its trying to compute pi at the same time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> > Unfortunately, this implementation is ignoring the new reality: the browser > is no longer just a reading device; it is the world's largest application > platform.

This is why browsers really need to focus more on letting web pages be applications. On mobile, you can "add to home screen" for a web page and that's expected behavior. That needs to be forefront on the desktop as well.

I have over half a dozen SSB applications using Epichrome on the Mac, but that requires a level of technical expertise (finding and downloading a third-party program, finding icons to use, knowing that this capability exists in the first place, and so on) that you can't expect from average computer users. (Epichrome is great btw.)

</comment><comment><USER62> Honestly, we have to come to terms with what browsers are good for, and what they aren't good for.

For a lot of the situations that I see complaints about; I wonder if they really should have written traditional thick applications instead of a browser application.

</comment><comment><USER63> Seems like Edge also plans to do this: [https://github.com/WICG/interventions/issues/34](https://github.com/WICG/interventions/issues/34)

</comment><comment><USER64> Love how the one commenter already found a workaround:

Olivier TilleJanuary 24, 2017 at 8:28 AM

>That shouldn't be a problem as apparently "tabs with audio are always considered foregrounded". Source: [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink- dev/-dmrNAFHd-4/discussion)

UnknownJanuary 24, 2017 at 8:53 AM

>And there's your workaround. Loop a 1 second null audio file for as long as you need to (please don't).

</comment><comment><USER65> Each tab should get a certain number of credits to use CPU cycles, like a ticking time bomb when it runs out it should detonate and self-close (or just stops updating.) Perhaps then the browser in the next request to the same URL sends a header notifying the server that its page ran out of credit in x amount of time so the author can optimize it.

Another idea is to look at other Chrome users activity pattern in regards to how often a given URL is kept hidden and revisited to determine how much throttling should be done to it, something like an AdBlock list.

</comment><comment><USER66> A setting to only allow this when the machine is on battery would be nice.

<comment><USER67> I often use my laptop while it's connected to power.

I still want to throttle (or suspend) background tabs, because the laptop gets uncomfortably hot otherwise.

<comment><USER68> An option to disable this would be nice. Some people are using PCs and don't care about battery/temperature.

I just can't imagine tons of games that are out there working nicely. New release is estimated to land on 31 January[0], how the hell are people supposed to update their codebases?

[0]: [https://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar](https://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> This has now been delayed:

Unfortunately, our current implementation throttles WebSockets. Because of this we ARE NOT SHIPPING this intervention in M56.

The current plan is to disable time-budget background timer throttling for the pages with active connection (websocket, webrtc and server-sent events) and to ship in M57 (subject to further feedback). We will keep you updated with the progress.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13504385](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13504385)

</comment><comment><USER70> This sounds a lot like the problem Android had with background tasks.

Starting in KitKat, a batching mechanism was introduced, so that apps which declared that they wanted CPU or screen resources in the future didn't all have separate timers running, but instead became members of a class that wanted similar things.

One of the most effective features of Greenify, a battery-saving app, is to force all apps (or all apps minus a few that you designate) into the batching mechanism.

<comment><USER71> Yep, and Android 6.0 Doze even expanded this mechanism to be more aggressive which proved to provide huge battery savings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> They should have done it long time ago. The pages today contain a lot of third-party scripts (advertisement, tracking, etc) and they sometimes can use up to 100% of a CPU core.

Mobile browsers are already stopping background pages because otherwise the phone's battery would be drained in hours.

Unless a background page is doing something useful for user, it should not consume any CPU time.

</comment><comment><USER73> As a bellweather, OSX has had something called App Nap for some time, which throttles hidden apps apart from certain activities like playing music or downloading. I would imagine it affects Chrome as well as Safari. Have there been any real problems with that in practice?

<comment><USER74> Safari, yes. Chrome no. (You can see it in the task manager)

<comment><USER75> There haven't been problems with it in Safari as far as we know. We also do additional throttling at our level in addition to participating in App Nap on a per-tab basis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> What if something like a QOS tag were established for the page author to declare their need for a higher priority? The browser would also need to display an icon on tabs that have requested higher priority so that users can close sites that are abusing the privilege.

</comment><comment><USER74> I want most aggressive battery savings possible on macOS. AFAIK Safari is doing more aggressive things. We are still a huge step away from Safari battery consumption although I see step by step progress made by Chrome team.

</comment><comment><USER77> I'd he happy to suspend (and even offload to swap) some tabs from time to time. Too many times I get almost unresponsive tabs where I want to do something but it is just too laggy due to other tabs occupying the cpu.

</comment><comment><USER78> I wish Chrome would also allow changing tabs when a page issues an alert notification. Further, there is no reason that alert notifications other than document/data saving, should prevent closing a tab.

</comment><comment><USER79> Related: is there a decent FF extension to stop _all_ JS activity in firefox in background tabs?

I really don't want any JS to be running in background. This _includes_ WebWorkers and ServiceWorkers.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Browser vendors should be concerned about battery life"... On a desktop or laptop plugged into the wall? Sounds like an incomplete or counter-productive optimization.

</comment><comment><USER80> The browser is the new OS. Some applications should run in the background, some shouldn't. The user should be able to control it. Make it a permission.

</comment><comment><USER81> So you get to use 1% CPU, effectively. The timer test seems strange, why was your "simple setInterval" using so much more than 1% CPU?

<comment><USER82> No, you don't get to use 1% CPU. That would still work. The problem is that you get to use 100% of CPU but only 1% of the time.

<comment><USER83> Explain how that is different?

<comment><USER39> It's different because it can't just slow down a running task.

Say you use up 150ms of CPU time. Chrome isn't going to let another timer fire for 15s. Then, you're late on a whole bunch of work that needs to get done, so the next timer takes 500ms. Chrome then throttles the next timer by 50s. And so on and so forth...

<comment><USER83> But if your script had 1% of CPU, that 150ms workload would take 15s to complete. Then the next workload would be late in the same way and take 50s to complete.

How is this different?

<comment><USER39> It depends on what you're doing. If you split up tasks and interleaves them (such as: process a few items, stop, set another timer, process a few more), actual CPU% throttling would be better. It would be easier to have certain timers take priority, such as heartbeat responses or notifications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> How appropriate the day after finding the Task Manger in Chrome for the first time yesterday. Finally got my fan to turn off on my laptop.

</comment><comment> brian-armstrong What if my page has getUserMedia/microphone access? Do I still get throttled even if I'm not playing any sound?

</comment><comment><USER85> For people (like my parents) who open way to many tabs, this will be a big help. Obviously there are a ton of caveats.

</comment><comment><USER86> Can't they just have an enable / disable button with a warning about battery life?

</comment><comment><USER87> All browsers should have an option to do this.

As long as you can turn it on and off, no big deal.

</comment><comment><USER88> Is this feature enabled on the beta channel of Chrome builds?

</comment><comment><USER89> Sounds good, would be better if it's adjustable.

</comment><comment><USER90> So long to listening to Spotify ad-free at work...

</comment><comment><USER91> Switched to Safari, happier than ever.

</comment><comment><USER92> finally~ But I would prefer if background tabs didn't pre-load at all.

</comment><comment><USER93> Good.

</comment><comment><USER94> YES!

</comment><comment><USER95> I would like to see Chrome utilize what I think is the right solution for loading background tabs; I would like it to let you (when you want to) rather than OPEN a background tab, only ENQUEUE a background tab -- opening it only when that tab becomes active, meanwhile keeping it in the status of an "enqueued" (i.e. barebones) tab with that URL in the tabs menu until you actually make it active or it becomes active the way any other tab would, at which point it loads - in other words a lighter kind of background tab that does not load at all until it becomes active.[1]

If this were implemented then finally I could open 120 tabs in a window for a detailed query (and they're not all loaded, there's zero overhead), then after 11 minutes of reading a few of those tabs, closing the ones I've read and having others load in their place if they weren't already loaded, be left with 87 unopened tabs with which I could close, since I've learned everything there is to know about that subject and I don't feel the need to read the rest anymore: I feel I've found the answer.

As it stands I can become an expert in any subject accessible in a day or two, in twenty minutes - unless, as sometimes happens, Chrome gets in my way. I can do it by opening them in background tabs today - but Chrome will both slow down and also be at high risk of crashing completely, not just in the window I'm in but all windows. Because at the moment even the 99th background tab, which I want to open so as to potentially glance at, actively, fully loads even if I close that window before I ever want to glance at it.

Along the same lines, I strongly feel there needs to be a way (not necessarily the default way) to open private (incognito) windows in a way that opens them privately _" Except for crashes"_ \-- meaning that these tabs remain open until _I_ close it, by clicking the X button, not whenever Chrome crashes - which usually happens when it's done using all my memory.

If you fundamentally _disagree_ that there is a distinction between the user actively exiting and you crashing unexpectedly, then you might as well change the Incognito greeting text to "Pages you view in incognito tabs won't stick around in your browser's history, cookie store, or search history after you've closed all of your incognito tabs _or Chrome crashes unexpectedly_ ".

But that doesn't make much sense. So please make the functionality match what was promised to the user, and keep pages open until the user has closed closed all incognito tabs. Not you.

I feel that these changes would improve people's experiences drastically. Chrome's developers surely care about their users and want to give them the best possible experience, and in addition this would get Google more clicks, more traffic, more ads from Google search results, by letting people open more pages with abandon on a lark, or on some thread they want to explore. By letting people keep more pages and searches open or queued for opening.

For the second point (about keeping incognito tabs on disk until they are actively closed with an X, at which point deleting them) - this also gives their users what they've just been promised. Whereas, at the moment in Incognito stuff just disappears whenever Chrome decides to crash -- which is often, given that at the moment it aggressively eats memory for any tab anyone might want to follow. This _substantially_ increases the cost of exploring the web by opening background tabs. It makes people really weigh whether they want to open a background tab: it adds friction.

The web is about links. I hope Chrome will start letting people follow more of them and not lose their trail if they don't want to keep it in their history. This would be a positive change for all users, but, especially, the heaviest and most thorough users of the web, who load and visit the most pages. Now they could open even more in a browsing session, without having to think about whether they really want to risk opening another tab. (In terms of resources.)

For all of these reasons, I hope Google will implement enqueued tabs. Separately, at the user's option, I hope tabs status will be kept on disk until the last incognito tab is closed manually by the user (at which point it's scrubbed with random data), so that upon a crash it can be re-opened unless the user presses an X to _that_ window. It would improve the experience of using the web for anyone who wanted it and not deprive users of the reading they worked hard to assemble for themselves. And it would increase the velocity with which users could explore the web.

Thank you.

\--

[1] Functionality. Right-click a link, click "enqueue", this should be the same as "open in background tab" except the tab is really kind of like a placeholder, just consisting of a URL. It's not a full background tab that opens, gets its window name, etc - instead, it is not loaded until you actually make the tab active.

Right-clicking the tab bar should give you the option (in addition to normal options) "Close all enqueued tabs", leaving just tabs you've fully normally opened.

Example usage: say I'm searching for an article. I can start by doing some obvious Google searches in a few different tabs. I can go through the results and enqueue each one. Then I can go through the first (when it becomes the active tab, it is loaded) and enqueue any links that might lead to what I want. Then I close the now full-fledged tab when I'm done reading and following links, the next tab becomes active (which might have been an enqueued tab in which case it becomes loaded for the first time) and I can keep doing my search. Eventually I've found the page I'm looking for and can close all of the enqueued pages, or perhaps drag the tab into a new window (as you can today) and then close the old window - disappearing all the enqueued pages but also the normal, fully loaded tabs, per the normal behavior closing a window. (An enqueued tab is just a semi-loaded tab, just a URL that never loads until the tab becomes active. If its window or itself is closed in the way you usually close a tab - by right-clicking and clicking "close tab" or by middle-clicking on it, before it was ever the selected tab, then it simply wouldn't have even loaded a single time.)

This is exactly what I do today: except I have to be careful that Chrome doesn't crash while I do it, because it doesn't do it gracefully. I would like to manually specify whether I want the background tab to be actually loaded.

</comment><comment><USER96> Oh god, please change the title. It's about timers, not bandwidth. I was already imagining streaming music from Spotify and having hiccups all day.

<comment><USER97> They throttle timer activation frequency if you use too much CPU time (with the goal of throttling CPU usage). How is the title not accurate?

<comment><USER98> It is confusing. I thought it meant network throttle till I read the post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> This is their plan. Google will charge companies for extra processing time on your own computer.

</comment><comment><USER100> Why though? I run Chrome on my decently powered laptop and most of the time I am connected to AC power. I want the machine to run as close to full potential as possible. This is not a mobile phone that needs to preserve battery by killing every background process. It's frustrating because no other browser matches chrome in smoothness and bug-free-ness, so I have no option but to tolerate the trademark anti-user behavior from google.

Firefox y u sux so much?

<comment><USER101> I run Chrome on a decently-powered desktop, and too many tabs can still kill it.

This is a good default; too many websites are built under the assumption that they're the only thing open and they have infinite resources to burn. Granted, I'd like to see more configuration options before this hits primetime, but I think it's going in the right direction to force some discipline on pages if the developers don't code it in (especially since there are events to tell when you've gone background).

<comment><USER100> > too many tabs can still kill it

"Kill"? Does your desktop stop responding and show a BSOD? How many tabs do you have open when that happens?

I don't know how heavily people use their Chrome but for me, ~50-100 tabs across ~5 windows across 3-4 virtual desktops seems to not hinder my laptop at all. It's very responsive and no crashes. To be honest I've never seen a system getting "kill"ed due to too many tabs.

My usage does not involve many video/audio tabs though. It's mostly lots of text pages and the usual mailboxes etc.

I think browsers should follow a similar paradigm for background tabs as the OS follows for background apps, ie, both have an equal share on resources unless foreground apps start slowing down due to background activity.

<comment><USER101> Kill performance. It's 2017; if you're running Win10, BSODs nowadays almost always mean you have a legitimate hardware failure or you're actually working on developing drivers. The OS has gotten very robust against the kinds of crap application-level software can pull to crash the OS.

It is not yet bullet-proof against a process deciding that it deserves all of your CPU and so much RAM that the disk cache needs to thrash to support it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Nvidia's Scary AI Generates Humans That Look 100% Real - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomsguide.com/us/nvidia-ai-faces-generative-adversarial-network,news-28869.html <comment><USER2> Why scary?</comment>


Future planes, cars may be made of `buckypaper' - <AUTHOR> http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/T/TEC_BUCKYPAPER?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-10-18-03-35-31

<comment><USER2> _Buckypaper is made from tube-shaped carbon molecules 50,000 times thinner than a human hair._

It's really time for a new social contract, in which people who read Wired promise that they know what a nanometer is by now, and in which journalists promise that they'll stop describing things in terms of the width of a human hair.

Human hairs, for what it's worth, are between 20 and 200 microns in width.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm okay with this as long as past planes and cars stay as metal or fiberglass.</comment>


Facing the crocodile that killed my wife - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31001996

<comment><AUTHOR> Gets the village blacksmith to quickly hack together a spear with which he takes revenge; a revenge that takes an hour and a half to finally kill the animal.

<comment><USER2> I obviously feel for the guy, I'd be angry and sad too if my wife was taken by a wild animal.

You might think that these sort of "revenge attacks" only happen in the underdevelopment parts of this world, think again;

Western Australian shark cull: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_shark_cull](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Australian_shark_cull)

We basically get people who are stupid enough to swim or surf in waters in which sharks lives. Shark kills dumb-ass, government kills sharks. Go figure..</comment></comment>


The State of CyanogenMod - <AUTHOR> http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/the-state-of-cyanogenmod

<comment><USER2> I really was worried what happens to CyanogenMod, since the 7.1 RC is out there for quite a while now..

<comment><USER3> I bet cyanogenmod's best features will be baked into android, i mean it would be stupid to hire him and be like do what we think it should be, but i bet the UI will become one so you don't have to have cyanogenMOD

<comment><USER4> Samsung isn't Android, what you said would make sense if Google had hired Cyanogen.

<comment><USER2> Exactly. My fear is that Samsung will put him on Samsung Firmware projects, which would be quite resonable for them..

<comment><USER5> lol, considering the state of the samsung patches to android, they better hire him and put in a top decisional position... or at least that's what I'll do.

<comment><USER3> Is android open source? So I think that if your in any position where you can have a good relationship with google like a handset producer is a plus. It is better than being some programmer doing that as a hobby that is the point I was trying to get accross.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Time's running out for the tech giants to fix an age-old issue (The Telegraph) - <AUTHOR> https://noageismintech.com/telegraph_news <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, I posted the image on NoAgeismInTech, as the original content is behind the paywall ([https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/29/forever- yo...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/06/29/forever-young-hidden- age-discrimination-scandal-tech-industry))</comment>


Redfin CEO:  Stanford is the Hogwarts of Silicon Valley. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/02/the_next_silicon_valley.html

<comment><USER2> _a high cost of living – a two-bedroom house in Palo Alto typically costs more than $1.5 million — prevents people from buying homes and having children_

Yet again the housing fallacy, this time from a guy _at a real estate startup._

The houses in Silicon Valley are not sitting empty because they're expensive. In fact, it's not merely false that SV's high housing prices prevent people from living here, it's necessarily false. The fact that a house cost $x means someone was able to buy it.

<comment><USER3> What he seems to mean is 'prevents _many_ people from buying homes and having children', which I think is difficult to argue with. Obviously people buy those houses, but they probably aren't 'average middle class american' types, either.

One of the reasons I was happy to return to Italy in 2000 was that most towns there seem to have a mix of young and old, rich and poor that seemed much more real to me than San Francisco, which especially in those days was like living on another planet in terms of how weird it had gotten with all the money and craziness.

<comment><USER2> I suspect the variation in wealth in SV is as great as in other places, if not greater. It's just that the median is higher.

<comment><USER4> But that higher median means that you get less variation in the kind of people around you. You only get the kind of people that could meet that price level. Thanks to the 30 year mortgage, gentrification is slower than conventional economic theory would predict.

The fact that the median is higher means that there's a smaller slice of society that can afford it.

<comment><USER2> _But that higher median means that you get less variation in the kind of people around you._

That is an illusion. To someone poor it might seem like everyone in Silicon Valley is "rich" and thus the same. But that's just an illusion caused by being an outsider, like the feeling children often have when they see people from some very unfamiliar society: how do they tell one another apart?

You'd feel there was even less variation in the people around you if you moved to a city in China, because the people there would be way more like one another than they were like you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The URL is broken. Try [http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/02/the_next_silicon_valley....](http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2008/02/the_next_silicon_valley.html)</comment>


Show HN – content management, built for developers - <AUTHOR>

https://contentpool.io/<p>Content Management as a Service. Add CMS functionality to your web application by including a single script.
Rich editing capabilities for the end user combined with powerful APIs and libraries for the developer. Focus on your application - we handle your content. <comment><USER2> I like what i'm reading but I want a video to see how it functions. Makes me leery this might not even be a product yet.</comment>


Running a business with boobs: the things I never say (NSFW) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/fuzzy-sharp/running-a-business-with-boobs-the-things-i-never-say-ac58a48c674?__s=rxd5fssyproriq3sykct#.z2rn9cryx <comment><USER2> I enjoyed this article until the closer at the very end:

"Having boobs and running a business is exactly the same as having a penis and running a business, except boobs are more aesthetically pleasing. I hope, at minimum, we can all agree on that."

Female CEOs are exactly the same as male CEOs, except women are more aesthetically pleasing?

<comment><USER3> >except women are more aesthetically pleasing

No, you put words in her mouth. She believes boobs are more aesthetically pleasing than penises.

<comment><USER4> So, the original point still stands, but on naked CEOs.

<comment><USER3> Not necessarily. I might find long hair more aesthetically pleasing than boobs or penises.

She's merely compared two different body parts, which in our culture are more than not covered by clothing in business matters.

Let's not get too distracted by the last sentence of her article. There's more substance in the paragraphs preceding it.

EDIT: For anyone that misses my point about hair, men and women can have long hair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Here's an example: while interviewing a man for a comptroller position, he asked me if I was familiar with financial statements, like a balance sheet. This person knew I had been an entrepreneur for years. When I simply replied yes, because I found the question so mystifying, I was met with laughter and a five minute lecture on why balance sheets matter. A lecture that would have been more fitting for a high school level finance class than an interview with a CEO who carved out a precious 30 minute slot to speak with a candidate._

That is brutal. I don't understand how someone could be so tone-deaf, especially in a job interview.

<comment><USER6> Listen to women talk about man-splaining, and you start to realize that this is really, really super common. Men condescend to women _all the time_ , and for us men, we're simply never exposed to it.

The only way we find out is when women tell us (and they have to trust us enough to know we won't dismiss their stories out of hand).

<comment><USER7> A theater group made the news a few days ago when they gender swapped the two candidates in the us election and reenacted a few of the political debates. A comment that often got back was how Clinton's speech was received as completely mansplaining when it was repeated word-by-word by a man.

It is very anecdotal counter example, but saying that men never get exposed to condescending from women don't seem true at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If I were a musician, I'd write a song titled, "What's boobs got to do with it".

</comment><comment><USER9> The point about assuming women are not ambitious really hits home. That is the perfect example of social bias against women in leadership.

</comment><comment><USER10> The first point ("don't invite me to an event...") seems to create a bit of a conundrum. Let's say you're running an event. You've done everything you can to make the submission and selection process as gender-neutral and woman- friendly as possible, but you still have an overwhelmingly male slate. Maybe there's still some vestige of sexism left in the system. What do you do?

(1) Go with the mostly-male slate. After all, you tried.

(2) Reach out to women more, and admit you're doing so because you think it's important for women in the audience to see that they have a chance to be on the stage some day and/or you can't rule out the possibility that your process wasn't as gender-blind as you wanted it to be.

(3) Reach out to women more, but hide your reasons.

The article seems to discourage (2), but is that really worse than the other options? I'm skeptical. I'd say that (2) _done well_ would be the best option, though I can also see how it might be done very poorly.

</comment><comment><USER11> Tangent:

One of my pet peeves are blogs without a link to the company. Clicking the logo takes you to the blog, not the company. Missed opportunity. Don't make people have to google your company name to find your website.

<comment><USER12> > "I started out life as a baby and then a little girl in Detroit and now I > live in LA and run Lumi."

Where "Lumi" links directly to the company website.

<comment><USER11> You made my point. It should be prominent, not hidden or non-existent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Having boobs and running a business is exactly the same as having a penis and running a business, except boobs are more aesthetically pleasing. I hope, at minimum, we can all agree on that._

At a minimum, yes, but that's an apple to oranges comparison. A boob is not equivalent to a penis.

</comment><comment><USER8> Short and to the point, but nope, don't get too excited, guys. The NSFW part is not much.

<comment><USER13> I'm irritated that this was labeled NSFW over a nipple. The message is way too important to turn people away over being prudish. If HR reprimanded you over reading an article related to HR practices in regards to gender you need to point out the irony.

<comment><USER8> Not sure, but I think the NSFW tag was from the poster.</comment></comment></comment>


My Hilarious Warner Bros. Royalty Statement - <AUTHOR> http://www.toomuchjoy.com/?p=1397 <comment><USER2> So, the labels charge the bands for everything they do for them? So why do they then also take 90% of the income?

You get a profit if you make an investment, but if you charge for all your services, you didn't make an investment, so why do you deserve a profit?

But, I guess it works, since people are doing it.

<comment><USER3> Plenty of businesses have multiple ways of billing.

If you order repeat bank statements from your mortgage bank, are they not allowed to charge you for postage??

As far as the article can show, Warner Bros is out $300K on the deal with little prospect of getting it back. That's presuming the digital download sum was actually $92,000 instead of $65.

<comment><USER4> You missed the bit where he points out that 90% that Warner take off the CD sales are not deducted from the advance. In his figures Warner only had to sell 15,000 of each CD to break even (which the author seems to suggest they did). At this point the band will still be in the red with the label but the label wont be in the red with the band.

<comment><USER3> I didn't miss that bit.

That 90-10% repayment split is part of the contract agreement he made with WB. If it isn't he can sue WB.

\---

Other world examples: When one pays off a mortgage, you need to pay both for the interest portion as well as the consideration portion.

That can vary over time. First you are paying off interest, later a mix.

Again very clearly a contract term and not morally wrong.

<comment><USER4> A mortgage has an interest rate set (in part) by an idependant body. This is generally below 10%. You will find that this deal we're discussing is the other way round the label slicing off 90% off the actual sales. That is their "interest charge" for the loan they provided.

If we're going to stick to this mortgage comparison: do you think it would be fair if all the banks colluded to charge interest rates starting at 90%?

Right/wrong, morally/legally that doesn't bother me. Is it fair? That's the question. The answer IMO is "No".

This is what riles me, especially when as a consumer it is very difficult to find this kind of information so it is difficult to make "fair" purchases to stop this kind of thing.

<comment><USER3> The base interest rate is set by the government and the banks can whack on whatever margin they want (including negative for a period)

Do you think it's "fair" that banks offer Interest Only[1] mortgages, where you the householder can pay off 100% of the price of the house... and then owe the bank the same amount again?

I understand why you are riled... but see my other post about my friend who offered better terms to bands and got no business[2]

\-----

[1] [http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/tips-and- gu...](http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages-and-homes/tips-and- guides/article.html?in_article_id=415637&in_page_id=53957&in_advicepage_id=97)

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=971950>

<comment><USER4> Yea, I used to work in the mortgage industry. Interest only mortgages are there for people who have investments to cover the cost but just to want to ensure the liability doesn't increase.

What is unfair is selling these mortgages with endowment plans as a "dead cert" to consumers like banks did in the 80s in the UK. They were all successfully sued and settled in the late 90's / 2000s.

In the UK the council that sets interest rates is an independant entity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Courtney Love gave an interesting speech several years ago on this very subject: <http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love>

<comment><USER6> Interesting article, but if you were after just the details on how fucked over artists are, check out the Steve Albini article listed below.

<comment><USER4> Albini doesn't reference the Satellite Home Viewing Act 1999 though. That bit of Courtney's rant is interesting. Also the reason why this article doesn't appear on her own site anymore is interesting.

It's all interesting stuff and this is an area where there is limited information. Read both!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The numbers are scary: WB claims to be $300k out but they're not accounting for a sizable revenue stream. The post mentions the band earned $12k in 5 years from albums they control, and they expected the albums WB control to earn 2-5X more. Assume 5x$12, and you'll get closer to $200k.

Do that over quite a few years, and they'll end up owing the band money while the band members are alive. Keep telling them $62 over five years and they'll never ever need to write them a cheque.

How is this not pure and simple theft?

<comment><USER8> Because they singed a contract stating that advances are to come out of their share of the profits.

It sucks but that's how it has worked and sometimes still works for artists although a lot of them are wise to this game.

<comment><USER9> His point is that the company is misrepresenting money _promised by the contract_ ; if the contract were actually enforced, the band might completely repay their advance in another five years and be owed money.

It's like in _The Producers_... Whether intentionally or not, the record labels are banking on the fact that people do not look too closely at the accounting of a losing enterprise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here is Steve Albini's famous article on the generalized situation between labels and bands:

<http://www.negativland.com/albini.html>

<comment><USER11> What are these "points" Albini is talking about in his article?

Like here: _"Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go."_

<comment><USER12> Percentage points on the gross retail revenue. Look at the spreadsheet under the article - the producer gets $90,000 (-$50,000 advance), being 3% of $3,000,000 record sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks._

I vote for the second option.

<comment><USER14> what's your surname?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> That's what's great about the internet. Fuck the distributors.

Want to be a journalist? Start a blog or a site.

Sell shit nationwide? Make a website, ebay, Amazon, etc.

Be famous across the world? Youtube.

Distribute an indie movie? Video sites and online stores.

The important feature of the internet here is that it allows _anyone_ to be a distributor. Survival of the fittest can work more ideally. No more people/companies being there simply because they were there first.

<comment><USER16> > _That's what's great about the internet. Fuck the distributors._

> _ebay, Amazon, etc._

> _Youtube._

> _Video sites and online stores._

Unless you are selling directly from your site there is still a middle- man/distributor. As a content-creator, 'distributors' are a middle-man between you and the retailers, but the retailers are middle-men between the distributors and the end-user/customer.

The internet is really for reducing costs, but doing something like selling streaming HD video (or just HD video downloads) is not something you can economically accomplish on your own with just a hosting service. You need a framework (iTunes, YouTube, etc) and they become the new distributor. They may be a _better_ distributor (or just more 'barebones'), but they are still a distributor.

<comment><USER15> >Unless you are selling directly from your site there is still a middle- man/distributor Right. And I said:

>The important feature of the internet here is that it allows anyone to be a distributor.

Anyone can be the distributor, so competition is fiercer. Monopolies/oligopolies are harder to maintain. Competition can be more ideal.

> doing something like selling streaming HD video (or just HD video downloads) > is not something you can economically accomplish on your own with just a > hosting service.

But more companies can jump into the space, even if one cannot do it individually. The barrier to entry to a lot of industries is reduced because of the internet.

My point was not that it makes everything accomplishable by _one_ person, my point was that the internet _lowers_ the barriers to entry and encourages more ideal capitalism.

> ...they are still a distributor.

Yes, and if you _self-distribute_ , _you_ become the distributor. There will be a distributor. My "fuck the distributors" statement was directed at the current distributors. It was a statement directed at all the inefficiencies of their current systems.

Distributors will always be there. Of course. But the internet will allow more distributors, because the internet gives all access to the world.

<comment><USER16> > _Yes, and if you self-distribute, you become the distributor._

I interpreted your post as saying that everyone can become a self-distributor on the internet. So I was commenting that if you use iTunes/Amazon/YouTube/etc you are not a self-distributor, you've just moved to a different distributor that may provide better service/terms/etc. So we are essentially on the same page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Terrific read, as unfortunate and common as the content may be.

As an aside that some may find of interest, and since the article mentions the Red Hot Chili Peppers, I forwarded it to a friend who works with the firm that does royalty audits for the Chili Peppers. His response (the auditor's name has been removed):

"The Chili Peppers use ____ to audit their royalty statements, which they pay ____ a lot of money for, and they always get checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars when ____ settles the audits with Warner Bros. Obviously, Too Much Joy can't afford ____'s level of expertise. So the little guy gets screwed... No surprise there!"

</comment><comment><USER18> What I find reprehensible about this is that while he believes he'll never repay WB, it looks to me as though he could be at least a hell of a lot closer to $0. So why should it be OK for WB to say keeping him further from $0 is OK?

You are not being a jerk by trying to zero out your balance. If what you said about your other albums is correct, you could be at $250K currently rather than the $400K. That means reaching "recouped" (whatever that means in this insane contract you're bound to) could be possible in 10-15 years.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the record companies are spot on - spend your time with the 20% of artists that are making money, ignore the 80% that are not.

The crooked side in this is that the labels outright own rights to the small 80%'s catalogs.

It would be better for everybody if Warner let them out of the pen so that artists could deal with rhapsody, etc themselves.

I doubt that the book-keeping and time spent on uploading, cashing tiny checks, etc would work out to being a positive net gain for the artists.

<comment><USER20> The exact same software that would allow for accurate tracking of the 20% that make money would work for the 80% that don't.

The fact that they can't properly account for the 80% strongly implies that they can't properly account for the 20%.

<comment><USER16> It's entirely possible that all of the numbers are being moved around _by hand_ through various large Excel spreadsheets rather than in an actual accounting system. You might think this unlikely for a large corporation, but it happens. In this case, shuffling around the numbers for the 80% would be extra time and money.

edit: Maybe I should mention that I'm not defending them, just pointing out that there _could_ be a plausible explanation. In this case, the plausible explanation is that their accounting people are idiots (they probably think that their system is more reliable because an accountant is looking at all of the numbers instead of some automated process, not taking into account that MS Excel isn't exactly bullet-proof software).

<comment><USER21> Assuming royalties are often incorrectly calculated, what's the likelihood that the innaccuracies are almost always in the favour of the record company? I suspect very likely indeed, and IMO it constitutes fraud.

When record companies deprive artists of income through misaccounting, they should be charged with copyright infringement, and fined at the same high rate per copy that they have bribed legisltors to apply when others infringe copyright. And if that means they go bankrupt, it's no more than they deserve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Seems to be down sporadically. Here's a mirror.

<http://www.toomuchjoy.com.nyud.net/?p=1397>

</comment><comment><USER23> Can they somehow count unrecouped monies against profits on their accounting sheets and so reduce apparent profit and pay less tax? Sounds like some sort of accounting scam (as well) whether this is possible or not.

</comment><comment><USER24> Funny, if it weren't so tragic.

</comment><comment><USER25> The financial statement seems to be printed... on a matrix printer! It looks very 80's to me.</comment>


Qutting Open Source - <AUTHOR> http://ryanbigg.com/2015/11/open-source-work/ <comment><USER2> A balance needs to exist. You hear about people dropping out of "open source" because it's too much. Don't let people take advantage, and contribute what you can. Giving back to the community helps others, but it shouldn't have to destroy you.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've always wondered why so many do so much work for so little return. Open Source is great, but it doesn't mean working for free is.</comment>


Earthsea – A Rival to Tolkien and George RR Martin (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/23/david-mitchell-wizard-of-earthsea-tolkien-george-rr-martin <comment><USER2> The Earthsea cycle is very, very different from Tolkien and GRRM.

The first three books are a classic "bildungsroman"\--a coming of age story-- both as a whole and individually. The point of view character in each novel is a young person, passing through late adolescence and into adulthood. In this respect it is more comparable to Harry Potter or The Dark Is Rising or perhaps His Dark Materials fantasy series.

The world LeGuin builds for the story is incredibly rich and unique, like Middle Earth and the world of ASOIAF, but the structure of the stories are considerably simpler.

However, the "inner life" of the stories are richer. Like the Dune series, the novels of Earthsea spend a lot of time deep in the perspective of a few key characters. I think it is one reason these novels are so hard to film in a satisfying way.

That said, where Earthsea really distinguishes itself from almost any other fantasy series, is the fact that LeGuin came back to the series much later in her life and added two more books. These are set in the same world but regard it with different perspectives of age and gender.

The original trilogy is classic fantasy about Our Heroes who are uniquely gifted and ultimately save the day and pass into legend. The final two books are about what happens to those people when they face the complicated and unsatisfying future: their personal gifts are no longer powerful, and their beliefs and assumptions are challenged by a new generation... and ultimately found to be not only flawed, but awful. Some of the things they defended were not absolutely good after all, but the lasting artifacts of earlier selfishness, bias, and bigotry.

I resisted reading these later two novels for a long time because I enjoyed the purity of the stories in the original trilogy. But now having read them all, I find I can enjoy them in related but still somewhat separate ways.

If the later two novels don't sound like your kind of thing, you could read the first three now, and then visit the last two books a decade or two (or three) later. That would align your perspective with LeGuin's when she wrote them.

<comment><USER3> I'm nearly 40 and I really enjoy Tehanu and The Other Wind much more now than I did when they were first published. I find it much easier to identify with the aging characters. I think TOW is now my favorite of the series.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Definitely up there with Tolkien and much better than RR Martin.

"When I was young, I had to choose between the life of being and the life of doing. And I leapt at the latter like a trout to a fly. But each deed you do, each act, binds you to itself and to its consequences, and makes you act again and yet again. Then very seldom do you come upon a space, a time like this, between act and act, when you may stop and simply be. Or wonder who, after all, you are." ― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Farthest Shore

<comment><USER5> I've been looking for a new fiction series to read, and you sold me. Thanks!

EDIT And to add, I know this is an older series but I tend to read more science part of fiction and less fantasy.

<comment><USER6> My favorite fantasy series was/is the Inheritance cycle ( Eragon ). My grandpa also really liked the series as well and binged them. So to me ( I was in middle school ) and my grandfather, they were all very interesting books to read!

<comment><USER7> The Eragon books are an unasahamed knockoff of Tolkein. A cilche-riddled, poorly written, tropey, dopey travesty.

<comment><USER8> Weren't they written by someone in the 16 years old range? They were not good books but it is still impressive for a teenager to have the discipline actually create a finished work. They definitely played up that angle when marketing the books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Honestly, the Earthsea books were decent, but I didn't think they were anywhere near Tolkien. Tolkien gives you the feeling that there is an entire world waiting just around the corner. Earthsea feels like a shell that you are exploring. Like it doesn't really exist, it just appears when you show up, almost a hollow feeling where the characters don't really exist but are paper cutouts. I read all 3 and enjoyed them, but just not as good as some others and I thought the world was a bit lacking.

<comment><USER10> What age did you read them at?

There is something about reading your first Tolkien fantasy book around 13-15 that just feels different. If you had read any of the Tolkien facsimiles at that age (Shannara, Wheel of Time etc) you may feel the same way. But if you reread those books now, you may feel different.

<comment><USER9> That's a good point; I read Tolkien in early teens, then read Earthsea in my 20s, so that would make a difference

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> No mention of Brandon Sanderson and the Cosmere novels? Instead of a single fantasy world, you get a whole universe!

"All of the books share a single creation myth (though not all cultures are aware of it), a single cosmology, and are connected by an overarching story." [0]

Sure, one could argue that it's still not fully-formed, as it's still in the process of being written. But the same could easily be said for A Song of Ice and Fire.

The Stormlight Archive quickly won a place in my loved series category. I don't think I devoured any book from last year as quickly as when the latest entry in the series was released.

One of my favorite things about Brandon Sanderson is that he proactively engages readers (/u/mistborn on Reddit), and he gives regular status updates on his writing progress. I highly value transparency from authors.

I'd never heard of Earthsea, but the article managed to catch my interest. I'm adding it to my queue.

[0] [http://stormlightarchive.wikia.com/wiki/Cosmere](http://stormlightarchive.wikia.com/wiki/Cosmere)

<comment><USER12> Brandon Sanderson is an interesting case; I have only read the Stormlight Archive books (and his wrap-up of Wheel of Time), and though I can totally see his appeal, I would also totally disagree that he belongs up there with the true greats, at least currently.

Reading his books, I feel like I'm in some kind of Marvel universe, complete with quippy dialogue and 'coolness' that to me gives a stink of 'commercialism' that I can't get past.

In the Stormlight Archive, Shallan is the best example of this: Her dialogue is so forcedly hip and witty that cringes abound whenever I read it. To me, it ruins the whole atmosphere and I feel like I'm in a plastic universe, rather than a living breathing one.

His worldbuilding is great, but his worlds are devoid of authenticity IMO.

<comment><USER13> Absolutely. I've found I have a really hard time with how he writes action as well. I always feel as though he's describing someone playing a video game.

<comment><USER14> like, "<character> cast Fire on <enemy> for 110 dmg (+3 from Ring of Fire)"?

<comment><USER15> No, but once he start to introduce some "magic" mechanics he literally describe it in details: how exactly it's works and looks like as if he was describing politicking. Also I took "magic" into quotes since in Cosmere books for the reader (!) it's always more like set of additional physics-like laws of world mechanics rather than some mystery.

<comment><USER16> This is of course a matter of taste, but I really dislike this approach to magic/alchemy that Sanderson has. He's explained it before in an illuminating article [1] about his classification of magic systems in "Soft" (less explained, more arbitrary) vs "Hard" (more logical, there are clear/mechanical rules), and how he prefers the latter. I respect this, but I dislike it. To me, magic isn't rational or logical, and overexplanation ruins it. I prefer Tolkien's subtle approach that magic is unexplained, part of the song that made the world -- and in fact, to some of his characters "magic" is a puzzling word.

"Like a videogame" is an apt description of Sanderson's approach, and not my thing. Even Jack Vance's magic system of memorizing spells, used in his Dying Earth stories and said to have inspired the Dungeons & Dragons RPG system, is more mysterious and mystical than Sanderson's. Which is the way it should be!

[1] [https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first- law/](https://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/)

<comment><USER17> To me, "soft magic" is the same as "a hacker did it" that so many bad movies and TV shows use these days.

<comment><USER16> It doesn't really work that way in practice, though. Not in Tolkien or in other good fantasy works.

Good "soft" magic is mysterious and often unreliable. It sometimes comes with a price. Main characters often do not understand it and cannot use it, or they misuse it to terrifying or hilarious results (e.g. Cugel in The Eyes of the Overworld).

The supernatural must be unknowable, otherwise it simply turns into the natural.

"A wizard/hacker did it" is simply bad writing.

<comment><USER15> As you posted yourself it's matter of taste, but I for instance simply can't stand another "Gandalf come and save the day" situation because everyone except very good authors heavily abuse such tropes.

I perfectly fine with this kind of stuff in something like Discworld because of nature of these books and how I read them, but for epic fantasy with more or less serious themes I expect events to have logic behind them. Sanderson's books still have mysteries, but they just served by the ways other than generic "magic". So there is plenty of things to make theories about during and after reading.

<comment><USER16> Yes, of course, it's a matter of taste. I can't argue beyond "I like reading this and dislike reading that".

Ultimately, to me, literary fiction is NOT like programming, and it's not as easy to explain what works and what doesn't. Mystery and ambiguity are bad things in code but good in literature.

Which brings me full circle to why I dislike Sanderson's approach :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> For thos wondering why this is topical, the author (Ursula K Le Guin) died yesterday (and this made the front page of HN).

<comment><USER19> I totally missed that. I really enjoyed her writing. A great loss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The reason why I enjoy Tolkein so much is that I like the poetic, almost biblical prose. I know why it drives some people mad, but I really liked it.

I've never found anything that comes close to replicating it. I would love recommendations if people have them.

<comment><USER21> You might like Gene Wolfe, especially The Book of the New Sun and the Latro series [1].

The Book of the New Sun is technically sci-fi, but in fantasy trappings, set in a future world in which the sun is slowly dying out, and humankind has mostly lost their knowledge of technology. It's dense, filled with sly little narrative puzzles that are left for readers to deconstruct, and it's beautifully written in a mannered, intentionally archaic style.

The Latro series, starting with Soldier of the Mist, is a historical fantasy about a Roman soldier who suffers from retrograde amnesia, so he must continuously write down what happened the day before. (It came out decades before the movie Memento.)

[1] [https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/sci-fis- difficul...](https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/sci-fis-difficult- genius)

<comment><USER22> I second this endorsement of BOTNS. It is the best fiction book I've ever read. I think lobster_johnson's description here is a great meta-summary. For the sake of brevity I will curb my impulse to vomit up heaps of sycophantic praise for this book. I highly recommend it if you're up for an intellectually demanding read.

<comment><USER20> I remember trying the Kindle sample and thinking "Man, this is rough going". Does it ever ease up?

<comment><USER23> There are levels and levels to what's going on in the writing. The early chapters are there to set up that he's lying to you, in a way that's heavy handed and devilishly subtle at the same time. Reading Gene Wolfe is like playing a poker game with the author, and no matter how hard you try to pay attention sometimes you look down and chips are missing, like Penn and Teller were just "explaining" a magic trick to you. It's frustrating and difficult and fantastic all at the same time, but obviously not for the same market as someone expecting a typical coming of age fantasy novel.

<comment><USER22> I know this is leaning into off-topic territory so I promise not to do the fiction-debate-thread thing, but a lot of readers (myself included) disagree with the suggestion that he ever lies to the reader. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wizard of Earthsea was the first Sci-Fi/Fantasy book that I found difficult to follow.

This was because a printer's error caused the pages to be bound in the wrong order. I don't usually pay attention to page numbers, so it took me a while to realize this. I thought I was losing my mind until I noticed the numbers weren't in sequence.

To this day, I can't tell you what was going on, plot-wise.

</comment><comment><USER25> The Dragonlance saga was a favourite of mine when I was younger. The sheer number of books published in that universe is astounding.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragonlance_novels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragonlance_novels)

</comment><comment><USER26> Makes me wonder what Michael Moorcock (notable Tolkien critic) thought about Earthsea...

<comment><USER27> [http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953](http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953)

<comment><USER28> I was pleasantly surprised. The writing in that article is of a much better standard than that in Moorcock's fiction.

<comment><USER29> I owned and read pretty much all of The Eternal Champion "sequence"[0] back in the 80's. Sure, some of the prose wasn't exactly slick, but I found them deeply satisfying and a damn fine fun read.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Champion#The_Eternal_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Champion#The_Eternal_Champion_Sequence)

<comment><USER30> I recently read the Elric books and loved them. A friend said they're the written expression of an airbrushed 70s conversion van, or some heavy metal album cover. They're rough, but alive in a way eg. Sanderson can only glimpse.

Also, Gloriana was great (very different from Elric).

In this vein, Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword is probably my favorite; it's direct and raw, like a bare knuckle punch in the face :).

<comment><USER29> > the written expression of an airbrushed 70s conversion van, or some heavy > metal album cover.

Were you aware that Moorcock wrote, performed and toured with Hawkwind in the 70's and 80's? Also Hawkwind's 1985 "Chronicles of the Black Sword"[0] album is largely inspired by the Elric tales.

I've been to see Hawkwind live around 25 times, so I have a bit of a thing for them and Moorcock. If you ever get the chance you should go see them because Dave Brock sadly isn't getting any younger.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_the_Black_Swo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicle_of_the_Black_Sword)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> >ctrl+f "Malazan" \- "0 results"

I guess I'm going to have to be 'that guy'. Malazan Book of the Fallen does the whole intricate, overlapping fantasy universe incredibly well.

<comment><USER17> I read the first Malazan book but it never really gripped me. I've heard that it really gets good at book three. Do you agree?

<comment><USER32> Book two is very intense and gripping, but it features a different cast of characters from the first which some people find jarring. The third book returns to the characters from the first, and is definitely where most people find that they've really gotten sucked into it :)

<comment><USER31> It is very jarring, that's why I love it. He isn't at all bothered about following generic fantasy patterns, it does seem like a labor of love in that he just does what he likes when he likes. The only weak part I felt so far was the culmination of Book 1, it could have been better I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Prefer The Belgariad

That I did read to death.

<comment><USER34> Those were good! I'd put those above the Earthsea series.

<comment><USER24> I always thought the Eddingses threw a bit too much energy into the "love conquers all" trope. But I still concur.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Never read the book(s?) and I don't know the characters, nor the author, but that article was really engaging to read.

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this David Mitchell the UK comedian?

<comment><USER37> David Mitchell the author of Cloud Atlas.

<comment><USER38> Even though I knew it was the author I read this article in the comedians voice :)

<comment><USER39> I can't help but wonder how the two feel about each other; both being big names in their own field. Both enjoyable in their own right too.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CoreOS Stable Release - <AUTHOR> http://coreos.com/blog/stable-release/ <comment><USER2> "Starting today, you can begin running CoreOS in production" \- nice!</comment>