From 6254bd8943047c281f13daaf8b64c3a46c88129c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Raymond Hill Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:00:52 -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 e6da361..f5834d9 100644 --- a/Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md +++ b/Notes-on-media-coverage-of-uBlock-Origin.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ uBlock is **uncompromisingly pro-user interests**, and as such its default insta Such a high amount of filters will cause uBlock to block more than any of the other blockers when used with their default settings. -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. +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. And yet, uBlock was the best or among the best performers CPU- and memory-wise. Had uBlock and the other blockers been set to block roughly equally, the contrast between uBlock's efficiency and other blockers would have been even more pronounced in favor of uBlock, as the CPU- and memory-footprint of the other blockers would have increased if set to block as much as uBlock with its default settings.