From 12f6b53743f96b24d958d15b83048303719757b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 09:04:34 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Notes on media coverage of uBlock Origin (markdown) --- Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md b/Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md index f5834d9..06c1cf9 100644 --- a/Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md +++ b/Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ The fact that default settings were used for all blockers does put uBlock at an uBlock is **uncompromisingly pro-user interests**, and as such its default installation is to block ads, trackers, malwares, etc.[1] As of writing, uBlock's default installation consists of loading into memory over 46,000 network filters and over 34,000 cosmetic filters. -Such a high amount of filters will cause uBlock to block more than any of the other blockers when used with their default settings. +Such a high amount of filters will cause uBlock to block more than any of the other blockers when used with their default settings -- and as a result it's more likely web pages will load faster with uBlock. On the other hand, this will also put uBlock at a disadvantage resource-wise when compared to a blocker which just block ads -- which is how the other blockers in the benchmark were set up, it's their default settings.[2] For comparison, in the benchmark, only ~1,000 filters were enforced in Ghostery.