[HN Gopher] LinkedIn uses 2.4 GB RAM across two tabs
___________________________________________________________________
LinkedIn uses 2.4 GB RAM across two tabs
https://ibb.co/fYQVfMWp https://ibb.co/MyTNnrGQ
Author : hrncode
Score : 558 points
Date : 2026-03-29 08:58 UTC (14 hours ago)
| arun6582 wrote:
| linkedin is shit. i will get negative karma again
| porise wrote:
| It's not as bad as JIRA, although JIRA is marginally more
| useful than LinkedIn.
| tom1337 wrote:
| kinda offtopic but as somehow currently outgrowing trellos
| capabilities, do you have any good suggestions instead of
| Jira?
| calderwoodra wrote:
| Linear
| maccard wrote:
| The answer is unfortunately jira.
| menno-dot-ai wrote:
| Gitlab has pretty good Kanban functionality. People tend to
| hate Jira but there aren't a lot of great alternatives
| maccard wrote:
| Jira's problem is that it's effectively free-form, and there
| are no enforcements in place. You can have three teams - one
| using kanban with relative estimates, another using springs
| with story points, and a third using waterfall with time
| estimates - all in the same project, with the same workflows,
| and conflicting requirements. You have 3 different release
| fields, 2 are required, the third one is the one that your
| team are generating reports from.
|
| That and its dog slow, of course.
| rvz wrote:
| Both of them are equally garbage.
| eddyg wrote:
| Jira (hasn't been JIRA for a long time) is great when you
| have proper Jira governance in place, with admins who say
| "no, you can't have a new custom field, use this one with a
| new context", configure good workflow transitions with
| validators and conditions, design appropriate create, view
| and edit screens (instead of using the same one for three
| separate operations), etc. The problem is always crappy
| administration, not Jira. Jira can be _fantastic_ when
| properly managed.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Ironically if you use jira you probably should be using
| LinkedIn to escape it.
| lucb1e wrote:
| > i will get negative karma again
|
| "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never
| does any good, and it makes boring reading."
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ghywertelling wrote:
| If I were PM at LinkedIn, I would do some cross social network
| info pollination to correct the LinkedIn. I would promote power
| users from bluesky or twitter who are technical or otherwise
| have lot of good analysis. Experts are prolific users and make
| use of Zipf's Law to promote good content. Also through graph
| analysis, the users who get followed by power users will be
| promoted as well. Whatever you might say about Instagram and
| Tiktok, their recommendation system is SOTA. I even love ads
| from Instagram, they know exactly what kind of ads I might
| engage with.
| noitpmeder wrote:
| The fact that they hijack scrolling to artificially limit scroll
| speed is insane to me. Feels like I'm trying to navigate through
| molasses
| lpcvoid wrote:
| Imagine the MBA that had this idea. This is peak, distilled
| Microslop engineering right there.
| thunky wrote:
| It's the user's fault. They vote for this crap with their
| attention. Junk sites like this shouldn't exist but they do
| amd aren't going anywhere until people stop using them.
| kalaksi wrote:
| Some users might enable these kind of features with their
| attention, but I don't think users actually want these
| features and any kind of "voting" is likely unintentional.
| It's manipulation. The fault lies mainly with the company
| and their carefully planned dark patterns. Ideally, users
| should punish them by e.g. leaving the platform but there's
| friction that may be a bigger problem than the dark
| patterns (depending on user). And I don't think there are
| any platforms that always guarantee good user experience
| now and in the future.
|
| Not sure if users even realize what the dark patterns are
| and do. Users aren't all-knowing, with endless time,
| carefully balancing their attention to try to provide
| markets with the optimal signal to wisely guide the
| misbehaving actors.
| philistine wrote:
| Users are not perfect agents. How can you expect the
| average non-technical person to figure out what is
| happening? For most people, if they don't see visually see
| something happening on the screen, it doesn't exist. They
| simply have no frame of reference to figure out that
| LinkedIN is hijacking their scroll speed.
| shimman wrote:
| Is it really the users fault when the apps are literally
| designed by neuroscientists that explicitly design it to be
| addictive toward humans all of which is being funded by
| monopolists companies whose leadership tend to have
| antidemocratic views about humanity?
|
| Maybe we should finally regulate these addict boxes as the
| dangerous substances they are.
| baal80spam wrote:
| Nah, it's just bad engineering, period. I "like" aljazeera
| too - they hijack your freaking PageDn and PageUp keys.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Scroll down through jobs, hit next page. Page reloads at bottom
| of list on next page. Have to scroll up then scroll down, every
| page.
|
| Baffles me ui like this exists in 2026.
| hrmtst93837 wrote:
| Scroll hijacking like that feels like product brain rot. You
| can see the trade in plain sight they slow the user down so
| feed metrics look better, and the side effect is that keyboard
| nav, accessibility tools, and UI automation all get wierd in
| ways the people shipping it probably never have to touch.
|
| Older laptops already choke on LinkedIn. Adding fake drag on
| top of a heavy page is like putting a speed bump in front of a
| stalled car.
| koinedad wrote:
| The scroll jacking drives me nuts
| Banditoz wrote:
| I recently found a bypass for this. Put this in your ublock
| origin custom rules:
| www.linkedin.com##main:style(font-size: 16px !important;)
| kace91 wrote:
| I don't understand who uses that network anymore. Everytime I
| login it's all ai generated stories next to ai generated flavor
| images of people sounding like a parody of themselves ("what
| taking my kids to school taught me about business scaling").
|
| Out of all places to doomscroll, why choose the one that feels
| like an episode of Severance?
| eitally wrote:
| It's legitimately useful for networking, and also for keeping
| track of professional events.
|
| On the other side of the equation, it's also useful for sales
| teams using LI Sales Navigator as a lead enrichment platform.
|
| This doesn't excuse any of the numerous dark patterns in the
| app, or the memory consumption.
| mft_ wrote:
| I agree. I hate it with a passion and usually regret loading
| the page within about 10s of doing so.
|
| But it's the default for recruiters, and it's thus unavoidable
| to support necessary communication with them.
|
| I've been thinking recently it's surprising that they never
| carved off a communication and calendar/meeting function -
| ideally in a separate app. But this would probably hit some
| product manager's metrics, and LinkedIn is so far down the
| enshittification hole, it's also understandable that they
| didn't.
| reactordev wrote:
| You have to look at who owns LinkedIn and why building a
| meetings and calendar was not "part of the plan"
| mft_ wrote:
| On the one hand, yes - and (to be reductive)
| enshittification is basically making decisions according to
| incentives that aren't aligned with your users, so it fits.
|
| On the other hand, MS have Outlook email/calendar and Teams
| for video calling - so it could have been an opportunity to
| benefit different parts of their broader ecosystem. You
| could also build in limited access to Word for CV
| creation/editing (with Copilot support, of course) - and
| then bundle it and charge users for features, and charge
| recruiters even more for a 'premium' offering.
| reactordev wrote:
| Except those two divisions were at others ends of the
| hall, in between was the gauntlet of enterprise
| deference, with obstacles such as Service Now approvals
| and meetings about meetings about how to have good
| meetings... it's an MBA's wet dream.
| mft_ wrote:
| I think we're basically in violent agreement. MS sucks,
| big organisations often suck, misaligned incentives
| everywhere, etc.
| jadbox wrote:
| I think it depends on who you follow/connected with. I only
| follow people that are prone to write their own posts, and I
| feel Linkedin is less filled with AI crap as mass public
| platforms like X.
| paoliniluis wrote:
| LinkedIn feed now brings dumb posts from AI bots that
| contacts follow. All social networks tend to follow the same
| principles now: bring to everyone's feed what's most
| engaging, which is normally clickbaits or posts that use
| exaggerated words
| port3000 wrote:
| It's a social network that became socially acceptable to browse
| at work. It has all the negative attributes associated with a
| social network and none of the upsides (apart from the
| occasional recruiter message).
| monsieurbanana wrote:
| I work remotely so I had no idea. I'd have thought that
| unless you're in HR you wouldn't scroll a website whose
| primary purpose is to look for new jobs.
| edgyquant wrote:
| That is not the primary purpose of LinkedIn though. It is
| used extensively by a class of people who are generally
| decision makers and those selling services to them.
| mwexler wrote:
| Much like X, it's what you choose to use it for. Papers are
| posted, approaches are debated, and loose groups form to
| align. It's easy to scroll past the pandering, but there is
| useful stuff in the dross.
|
| But agreed, it is getting harder and harder to dig to the
| gems.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| I've not understood why people wanted it to be a social
| network. That aspect always seemed bizarre to me until it had
| been true for long enough to stopped being strange. But this
| doesn't make sense to me either.
|
| I wouldn't load the site at work because I wouldn't want to
| signal to my employer that I was looking for another job. I
| very deliberately didn't accept invites from management at my
| last employer (small company, ~25 people) until I didn't work
| there anymore. I wouldn't want them to get a notification if
| I suddenly revised my profile because maybe I'm shopping
| around for a new job, for example.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > I wouldn't want them to get a notification if I suddenly
| revised my profile because maybe I'm shopping around for a
| new job, for example.
|
| If I'm not mistaken, LinkedIn has options for all of this.
| You can edit your profile with or without a notification
| post. You can select "show open to being hired only to
| people outside your company".
|
| Not that I have great (or any) love for the platform, but
| if I understood you right, these things aren't really
| issues.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Microsoft wanted it to be a social network because they
| couldn't buy Facebook. They did buy Yammer though.
|
| A lot of the bad policies were implemented when getting
| LinkedIn ready for sale to boost the short term gains and
| maximize the sale price, once sold it was hard to reverse
| the policies in order to maintain a healthy market long
| term. They do kinda have a mini-monopoly / cornered market
| so they were able to milk that for money.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The same reason there's probably some dude pitching
| adding AI to notepad. Fad and fashion.
|
| In the last 20 years "peer to peer", "Uber for X",
| "gamification" and now of course "AI" were the must have
| tech memes. Back in the day O'Reilly had a conference
| dedicated to the revolution of... XML.
|
| Social was just another one. Now, even the social
| companies are kinda moving past social. It's more about
| hoarding attention. But when Microsoft was shoveling
| money at Gartner, we had guys coming in dropping books
| about how the social enterprise would revolutionize
| business.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| eh, that guy who pitched AI for Notepad was a product of
| M$lop push for AI everywhere. No one seriously though it
| needed AI, but if they're trolling for AI pitches, of
| course that's an easy target, it's already text based.
| GUI stuff is hard, but raw text?
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I actually didn't know that was a thing. I was trying to
| cook up something quick and absurd. Truth is stranger
| than fiction!
| siva7 wrote:
| Yammer was probably one of the most bizarre m&a stories
| ever.
| mancerayder wrote:
| Is it terrible if your employer finds that you're looking
| for another job? If they like you, maybe they'll intervene
| to make your life better?
|
| If they hate you, they're less likely to go through a
| termination process including severance.
|
| I used to always worry about them finding out. Now, I'm
| having trouble not blurting it out from the rooftops.
| andrewl-hn wrote:
| > It's a social network that became socially acceptable to
| browse at work.
|
| YMMV. I've heard a few stories where opened LinkedIn at work
| was treated as a massive red flag: "this person looks
| elsewhere, they are not committed to the company anymore".
| freeAgent wrote:
| It depends on your role. People in sales have it open all
| the time since it's a legitimate research tool for them.
| matwood wrote:
| Yep. Sales and biz dev people use LI constantly not
| necessarily for connecting, but learning about contacts.
| whatevaa wrote:
| No more such thing as commit to the company in western
| world anymore. Companies are definitely not commited to
| you.
| torginus wrote:
| This. I would rather post on any other social media site at
| work than Linkedin. It's a major signal that the person is
| looking for work.
| siva7 wrote:
| Especially the "Let me show you i have a open linkedin
| tab while screen sharing so you guys know i hate this
| place" move as if anyone cares.
| kube-system wrote:
| I can't imagine working in a place toxic enough where:
|
| 1. That's the default presumption (rather than someone
| doing networking for their current role)
|
| 2. Where "looking for another job" is a point of
| contention
|
| Any good senior engineer should be keeping in touch with
| others in the industry. And good teams are made up of
| people with good communication skills who want to be
| there.
| layer8 wrote:
| If you're considered valuable at your current company,
| instead of being a red flag it can help you get a raise or
| other benefits.
| projektfu wrote:
| Over time, when I see a login gate on a website, I've gone from
| "I should join this exclusive site" ca. 2005 to "I guess they
| don't want me here" currently. If there are others like me,
| Linked in is a net negative for hiring. I literally have no
| idea what's on it anymore.
| kleiba wrote:
| +1 I haven't made an account on a new website in years, and
| god forbid I will ever link my gmail with anything other than
| g-suite.
| jmye wrote:
| I was going to respond, because of course the site has value if
| that's where my network is and that's where everyone posts
| jobs. But I don't think that's what you're asking.
|
| I frankly have no idea who uses the social media aspects of the
| site. Some of the "career coaching" groups suggest posting
| constantly because it ups your visibility to recruiters, but
| thats only the content generation part. I'd guess some
| recruiters follow it?
|
| But even with careful curation of my feed, I have no idea who's
| spending more than 30 seconds seeing "oh, John/Jane got a new
| job, cool" and then logging off.
|
| Maybe it's people stuck trying to find work who think there
| might, somewhere in the noise, be some useful, additive signal?
| psalaun wrote:
| I use LinkedIn as a forum; I only follow, comment and react
| to economics, society, ecology related posts (and therefore I
| only follow people posting these opinions). It's the closest
| we have from an Agora: I can debate with people I won't ever
| meet in my real life circles, and I discuss (disagree)
| politely with them because I'm CTO of a company and I can't
| publicly appear like a troll or douchebag. I unfollow or
| ignore every people sharing or creating the typical LI posts
| with one sentence per line and an emoji instead of
| ponctuation, they are the NPCs to me.
|
| The fun thing is the career related part of LinkedIn is just
| a collateral for the real intrinsic value of the platform:
| you have no interest in being anonymous like X or FB,
| therefore you have to act professionally. It's interesting to
| note that trolls are often retired people or professionals
| high enough on the social ladder they don't care anymore for
| looking stupid on internet.
|
| This social network is in fact some kind of speakeasy!
| hatmanstack wrote:
| The feed actually surfaced people working on open source
| projects adjacent to mine, that turned into real
| collaboration and shaped technical decisions I wouldn't
| have arrived at alone. It's not all good content, but it's
| a useful signal source for things outside your usual field
| of view.
| cosmodisk wrote:
| I've been using LinkedIn for years. I'm one of those cynics
| who loath all those "inspirational" and "leadership" posts,
| but there's more than that. I've met some people who
| tremendously boosted my career. I've met people who later
| became friends and our kids play together. I did meet a lot
| of incredible people in various jobs who I wouldn't have met
| otherwise(e.g. CEOs of very large companies- I'm just not in
| those circles to meet people in such positions). I'm often
| involved in interesting and challenging discussions on
| various technical and other topics.
|
| The main point is that everyone can use it in a way they want
| to.It's perfectly fine to become some influencer if that's
| what one wants. It's equally fine to have 45 connections with
| people who are really good in what they do and perhaps
| exchange 5 messages a year. It's massive platform, so it's
| inevitable that there will be lots of crap out there,as in
| any other large forum without very strong moderation.
| quinndupont wrote:
| Desperate job seekers. Nobody wants LinkedIn.
| DaSHacka wrote:
| "No one goes there, it's too crowded" type energy
| itsthecourier wrote:
| to investigate people of interest
| wombat-man wrote:
| I still use it to reach out to old colleagues or see what
| they're up to these days.
| subscribed wrote:
| Recruiters keep reaching out. I didn't have to seek a new job
| in perhaps last 15 years, all I had to do was to flip "looking
| for opportunities" on and start sorting out the messages and
| emails.
|
| This works.
| catcowcostume wrote:
| It's still the main place where recruiter post jobs and look
| for candidates. That's why.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Do they not also make posts on Indeed or other non-social
| sites?
| dinkleberg wrote:
| The difference is that the recruiters come to you on
| LinkedIn. This is quite handy when you're currently
| employed since opportunities come to you that you wouldn't
| have otherwise looked for.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Cool, even more reason to dislike it. I want my people
| doing their work, not wondering if the grass is greener
| somewhere else.
| beAbU wrote:
| I got my last job there, and I have a steady queue of
| recruiters reaching out the whole time. So I will probably
| continue to use it as long as I need to eat. I don't engage
| with the feed at all though.
|
| I believe the same applies to many others as well
| saadn92 wrote:
| This. That's the only reason I'm on there too. I completely
| avoid the news feed, but it does help when you having people
| reaching out and you need jobs.
| bluedino wrote:
| I've also gotten my last few jobs there. It's great for that.
| Even if it's 90% low effort recruiter spam.
|
| It's also full of "greatest team in the world", pizza
| parties, "incredible" training sessions, and "meetings of
| great minds". And now it's turned into a bunch of comedy
| reels. Blah.
| torginus wrote:
| I think one of the most objectively pathetic things in the
| world is trying to ride the counterculture wave against a
| thing, while shilling the exact same thing.
|
| Hey kids, you know how influencerslop sucks? _proceeds to
| write influencerslop_
| sameerds wrote:
| You forgot "I am honoured and humbled to announce <insert
| mundane recognition>."
| le-mark wrote:
| The comedy/tragedy of this is; whenever I talk to people
| outside of engineering at social gatherings, this is what
| they do. Tell me their resume and accomplishments. I'm
| like, can we just a have a conversation please?
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| I always asks the question "what keeps you busy"? People
| think my wife and I are retired because of how often we
| travel. I say I'm not, I work remotely and try to keep
| the conversation away from work.
| matsemann wrote:
| It's a difference between "using it" and just having a
| dormant profile you wake to live when interested, though.
| pimeys wrote:
| Beeper has LinkedIn integration, so you can chat with
| recruiters with any Matrix app without ever opening the
| website.
|
| https://www.beeper.com/
| wolvoleo wrote:
| Still need a LinkedIn account for beeper to connect to
| though.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's a great way to spot phonies if you don't have a lot of
| time. If you encounter someone who seems to know things but
| you're not sure what or how well, check LinkedIn.
|
| If they are flexing as thought leaders, they are bullshit
| artists and readily ignored.
| jrm4 wrote:
| And the converse is true: If you read something with
| substance, you can know it is VERY important to them; they're
| likely literally risking their livelihood to do so.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Yes, it's low quality but you can find employment, you can
| establish some industry connections and you can find the right
| people to hire if you need to.
|
| Most people on LinkedIn do not waste their time there, they
| visit when they need to.
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| A lot of people have answered that it is a useful tool for job
| searching. My experience was a bit on the other side of the
| coin. Our company wanted more of a presence on the site to gain
| visibility so managers like myself were encourged (told) to
| sign up and post on it. We also received video training on how
| to write catchy descriptions of ourselves (under 50 words ofc)
| and stuff like that.
|
| The site is just a circle jerk. I hate it.
| justin66 wrote:
| From the online job searcher's point of view, it's one of the
| least awful circle jerks in a Dante's Inferno-esque series of
| circle jerks. It is only the first or second circle jerk, at
| worst.
| inaros wrote:
| I always saw LinkedIn, as nothing more than the best dating
| site in the world. My results so far have been stellar.
| tartoran wrote:
| Wait, are you dating on LinkedIn?
| richardstahl wrote:
| This is a good opportunity to link to Cringebot 3000 which
| helps you scale your presence on LinkedIn.
|
| https://www.cringebot3000.com/
| xantronix wrote:
| The greatest value I see in LinkedIn is that it's one of the
| best places you can have PvP encounters with delusional
| C-suites making ridiculous claims in a world economy-defining
| hype bubble. Do I particularly think I am doing anything to
| change their minds? No, but I figure if enough people saw, at
| least some class consciousness could be built enough to resist
| some of their most inane excesses.
| mancerayder wrote:
| That's the first I've heard of LinkedIn-driven revolutionary
| endeavors towards social change. I think that's the point
| we've all reached given all else has failed.
| dainank wrote:
| In my experience, I am only connected with people I have worked
| with at some point, while taking the effort to mark posts as
| 'not interested' whenever it felt like ai-crap or boring
| enterprise slop. The few times I now browse the site, I see the
| odd interesting article that a college has liked and I barely
| ever see the pathetic stuff. The experience is fine haha. I
| think the algorithm just alters to what kind of person you are,
| thus in my case, the app mainly recommends similar things to
| what I find here on HackerNews.
| riffraff wrote:
| I use it sometimes to message ex colleagues e.g. I'm traveling
| to City X and I want to arrange a coffee with them but I don't
| have their email or phone number anymore.
|
| I see some people sharing info I care to reshare (we're hiring
| X/I'm looking for job X) and a ton of the same slop ("I went to
| pick up my kids. I realize this is the real breakthrough of
| agentic development. Let me explain.").
|
| I genuinely can't understand why people write that crap, and
| who is their target audience.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| It feels important to remember that _all_ the Severed employees
| were there by choice. Perhaps not the choice of the innie, but
| hey someone made that choice for their reasons.
| nacozarina wrote:
| it's deteriorated to the point where shit-posting is becoming
| normalized, so it has that going for it
| markus_zhang wrote:
| The articles are mostly BS, but I got all of my previous jobs
| from LinkedIn, except for the first one. Which else should I
| use? I guess networking is better, but I'm not really a
| networking type of person. LinkedIn at least shows me which
| companies have openings so I can network with the hiring
| managers. Those openings could be fake, but hey at least there
| is some data.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I used it 18 months ago when I was looking for a job, and I
| found a paid subscription genuinely useful. Before and since:
| almost never. If I change jobs again then I'll use it again.
|
| At this point I assume that all the "thought leaders" posting
| garbage are either bots or people too oblivious to understand
| how dismal the platform is.
| anonu wrote:
| Many people use it.
|
| But let's be honest...
|
| it's not just a social media platform.
|
| It's a mindset. A daily ritual. A lifestyle. A place where
| every thought becomes a "lesson"
|
| ...
|
| Contributors can lay out their every boring thought in strange
| staccato posts.
|
| Every now and then there are genuinely interesting things
| happening in your industry you can learn about.
|
| But you have to suffer through the fake team building and work
| family dribble.
| jhickok wrote:
| "My father died from cancer, and this is what it taught me
| about B2B SaaS sales..."
| aenis wrote:
| Easy. That is the only social media site that is so comically
| bad, that it does not trigger me in any way with the feed. I am
| using it as a way to reach out to colleagues from the past - a
| bit like facebook circa 10 years ago.
|
| I can't stand any of the other social media sites and have
| deleted accounts there years ago. So, if I need to organize a
| small reunion with friends from highschool, linkedin is the
| easiest solution.
| dagmx wrote:
| As a hiring manager, it's still the best place to try and find
| people for a given role.
|
| Especially when it comes to somewhat more specific skills like
| graphics development.
| timokoesters wrote:
| Do you have advice for building up this network for graphics
| development? I'm a Master's student building a custom
| rendering stack with wgpu and it's difficult to meet people
| interested in specific skills like rendering.
| dagmx wrote:
| If you're in a big city, there are likely meetups locally
| for game devs (usually amateurs but a few professionals
| show up)
|
| If you aren't in a location with meetups , the best bet is
| finding online game dev communities.
| franktankbank wrote:
| Yea, I quit recently, got absolutely nothing positive out.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Because after Stackoverflow Jobs went bust, LinkedIn and Xing
| (in DACH space), are the best ways to reach out to head
| hunters.
|
| All those Indeed, Stepstone,... feel much worse.
| le-mark wrote:
| I will never understand why SO did not lean into its jobs
| feature. I got two jobs from it, I thought it was great.
| mancerayder wrote:
| You had me almost spit out my coffee. That's hilariously on
| point.
|
| My favorite is this:
|
| The LinkedIn Renaissance Man. It reads like this: "Visionary,
| Recruiter, Climber, Marathon Runner, Co-founder, Author.
| Father."
|
| That's the sales guys we charge with finding us jobs.
|
| Our past co-workers are all CEOs, CTO's, AI experts, and
| various flavor of Leonardo da Vinci that surely puts my income
| and achievements to shame.
| rirze wrote:
| It's great for niche fields or small credentialed network
| groups. The social media side is complete nonsense, don't use
| it.
|
| I mostly check it to follow up on recruiting messages.
| nottorp wrote:
| > Out of all places to doomscroll
|
| Doomscrolling is on you, other people use the resume and jobs
| parts?
| tyleo wrote:
| I use LinkedIn. I've posted some blog posts on both Hacker News
| and LinkedIn and determined that LinkedIn is a bit more
| evergreen. A post on the HN front page gets thousands or tens
| of thousands of views in a day but a LinkedIn post has
| thousands in the long tail.
|
| I think a lot of accounts are playing the algorithm and have AI
| generate a post every week. I just ignore those. Most of my
| posts are one sentence followed by a link to a blog.
|
| Truthfully, I think it's easy to rise above the slop since so
| much of it talks about the same stuff in the same format.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Very few people with LinkedIn profiles read the social feed.
| Even fewer post things to it.
|
| The majority use LinkedIn only for job searching and keeping
| contacts.
|
| I do some times wonder if any hiring managers see a lot of
| LinkedIn social post activity as a positive thing. The few
| times we've interviewed candidates who had a lot of LinkedIn
| posting activity it was considered a risk: We could go through
| their LinkedIn activity and see that they must have been
| spending hours posturing on LinkedIn and replying to people
| everyday during the work day, which looks like a big
| distraction when they're doing it constantly.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| > I do some times wonder if any hiring managers see a lot of
| LinkedIn social post activity as a positive thing.
|
| About a year ago I had a friend recommend me to their
| management. After three rounds of interviews, the CEO
| overrode the process and rejected me because I didn't have
| enough on my LinkedIn profile.
|
| As far as I'm concerned, I dodged a bullet. If the CEO cares
| so much about LinkedIn filler that he'd overrule the hiring
| process, I'm certain I would have hated every moment working
| there.
| MrDarcy wrote:
| I have consulted for CEO's and other executives who think
| like this. You certainly dodged a bullet.
| a4isms wrote:
| _Hiring can remain irrational longer than you can remain
| unemployed._
|
| One manager no-hires you because you don't post enough.
| Another doesn't like what you post. A third thinks you post
| too much. A fourth is pleased you seem to pay more
| attention to shipping products than hot takes. A fifth
| loves your hot takes.
|
| So you get a call and are asked to do a coding thing. One
| person no-hires you because you wrote fizz-buzz by hand and
| didn't use Claude. Another wants to see that you know how
| to code by hand, but although your solution is fast,
| compact, and correct, it isn't the solution they had in
| mind.
|
| At the end of the day, it's a highly inefficient, mostly
| irrational process dominated by social factors rather than
| objective feature detection.
| drfloyd51 wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Even if we could quantize someone into a feature matrix,
| every hiring process demands unique matrixes.
|
| Even if I pass all the quantifiable stuff... the first
| answer to an HR "off limits" question will be given soon
| enough if I get the job.
|
| Turns out being a Jesus nerd was a secret requirement.
|
| Wish they could just put that in the job requirements.
| zugi wrote:
| > Turns out being a Jesus nerd was a secret requirement.
| Wish they could just put that in the job requirements.
|
| Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, in making religious
| hiring discrimination illegal, sometimes just drives it
| underground. Over the years it's done more good than
| harm, but at a certain point it may be time to let those
| who want to hire only Jesus nerds self-select.
| josteink wrote:
| > Very few people with LinkedIn profiles read the social
| feed.
|
| I read somewhere that in Norway (small sample, yes I know)
| LinkedIn is supposedly a more popular social network than
| X/Twitter.
|
| You can have whatever opinion you mean about Elon, X, free
| speech and whatever. I'm not here to have that discussion.
|
| All that considered, as a Norwegian this had me quite
| surprised. I don't have the source anymore, but I'd love to
| dig into it to see what sort of metrics they use to measure
| this sort of popularity.
|
| Literally nobody I know uses LinkedIn except for business-
| SPAM.
| sunaookami wrote:
| Same with Pinterest in Germany which seems bizarre to me.
| It's supposedly more popular than Twitter, Twitch,
| Snapchat, LinkedIn and Reddit (but below TikTok, Instagram
| and Facebook).
|
| EDIT: Data from 2023: https://medias.smart-home-
| fox.de/SDE/Social%20Media%20Statis...
| phillipcarter wrote:
| > Very few people with LinkedIn profiles read the social
| feed. Even fewer post things to it.
|
| Yes, but many of the people who _matter_ in professional
| domains do. Much like all social media, the prolific few who
| do post have outsized influence, and engaging with them can
| often be to your benefit.
| bertylicious wrote:
| Could you please name a couple persons who matter in their
| professional domain, who post on LinkedIn, and who you
| benefited from by engaging with them on LinkedIn?
| toolazytologin wrote:
| > engaging with them can often be to your benefit.
|
| How? Legitimate question.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I dunno if that is really true. I've started posting
| technical things on LinkedIn because it gets pretty good
| engagement from real people that I know. I've also seen some
| great technical posts there.
|
| Definitely outnumbered by the inspirational slop, but I think
| it is a real mix and really depends who you connect with.
|
| Anyway yeah the main point of LinkedIn is to get jobs. I've
| got several through recruiter spam.
| loglog wrote:
| I recommend to block the Linkedin feed with uBlock.
| keeda wrote:
| Anecdotally, I've noticed a correlation between spikes in
| LinkedIn social activity and subsequent job changes, after
| which the activity (typically) subsides again. The activity
| doesn't even have to be actively posting, just reacting to
| posts on their feed.
|
| I think the dynamic you're observing is partly people just
| reacting to stuff (or if posting actively, fluffing up their
| "professional presence") as they do a job hunt.
| xioxox wrote:
| A surprising number of scientists seem to use it, likely
| because of the now terrible atmosphere for scientists on
| Twitter/X and the emptiness of bluesky.
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Bluesky doesn't push an algorithmic feed, so it looks empty
| if you aren't following people who are posting.
|
| FWIW starter kits and topical feeds are a great way to
| jumpstart your algorithm.
| yread wrote:
| I work in research and people post their papers there. Signal
| to noise ratio is getting worse and worse though.. My
| "favorite" was probably an AI generated post (3 em dashes in
| one sentence, its not this.its that. And so son) about how bad
| AI is and how it hallucinates.
| jonhohle wrote:
| "This wasn't just AI generated -- it was a paragon of
| hallucinated AI slop."
| neilv wrote:
| I doubt many people go to LinkedIn for the cringey and
| obnoxious feed. It's more write-only than anything.
|
| Almost everything about LinkedIn is miserable, not just the
| feed, and we need a much better competitor that people actually
| use.
|
| One of the challenges to making it much better will be the same
| problem that most 'social media' apps/sites have: some of the
| awful is institutionalized and automated, and will go wherever
| there is incentive to gain advantage.
|
| (My dating startup is mothballed partly for this reason. Our
| secret sauce approach to being great, rather than awful, was
| killed by ChatGPT. Moving forward pretending it wasn't would
| just turn us into yet another awful, with a flimsy gimmick,
| that hoped to be bought by the behemoth of awful.)
|
| Those of us who weren't networking in big tech still need to
| hear from good recruiters, or have some other way to matchmake
| with the right employers.
|
| A lot of people are thinking, "I know, I'll replace the
| sourcer/recruiter with AI!" The naive solutions here are just
| more-automated and more-deceptive versions of the same awful:
| sourcing via the old standby of random keyword searches and
| spamming, pushing for call, just wanting the resume to pass on,
| the employer having low trust in the validity and alignment of
| the recruiter's recommendations...
| neilv wrote:
| And be careful with AI _elsewhere_ in the hiring process.
|
| Recently, a good human recruiter found me an interesting AI
| startup opportunity. But they were "we're AI-first!" using an
| AI call scheduling thing instead of Calendly, and it seemed
| to mess up, so I emailed a quick heads-up about that.
|
| Spent 2 days prepping on their market niche before the call
| with CTO, and then he no-showed. I got an AI-sounding email
| from the CTO, after I waited 10 minutes in the call, saying I
| no-showed, and California-nice offering to reschedule. I
| replied immediately that I'd been waiting in the call,
| referenced my earlier heads-up about the AI scheduling, and
| would continue waiting there in case now was still good. No
| response...
|
| I wondered whether the CTO wasn't seeing my email due to
| broken AI managing his inbox, _or_ if he had just blown me
| off and ghosted after a mess-up on their end that he didn 't
| want to deal with. So I asked the recruiter to make sure
| employer knew what happened with the AI, and that
| rescheduling wouldn't just repeat the no-show and ghosting.
|
| No joy after a few days, so I bowed out.
|
| Don't use bad AI; or if you accidentally do, fix the
| situation when it messes up.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I keep an up-to-date profile so recruiters reach out.
|
| It's useless otherwise.
| xeromal wrote:
| I've gotten two very good jobs from linkedin.
| legitster wrote:
| LinkedIn has the most clear para-social relationship. Post and
| interact to look good for recruiters and future employers.
|
| Sprinkle in a few business sociopaths and various opportunist
| "influencers" and you have a semi-self sustaining feed.
| trash_cat wrote:
| Sales people using it a lot to scout prospects and understand a
| person's seniority in an organisation, to target better and
| prepare a strategy to pitch higher up the chain.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| There's a long tail of users who still visit out of habit. The
| last useful thing there was job listings, but between LinkedIn
| doing nothing to combat bots clicking apply on every job, the
| "fake job listings" phenomenon, and the job market being
| atrocious, you're better off playing the lottery.
|
| So, failing social media platform, full of bots, when is Elon
| Buying it?
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| > what taking my kids to school taught me about business
| scaling
|
| The brief period where LinkedIn didn't ban you for joke posts
| was glorious:
|
| https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/wtf/man-shares-fake-stor...
| com2kid wrote:
| There are some really funny people who run parody accounts, or
| who are retired and just don't care. They publish some
| hilarious posts. If you follow a few of them LI becomes worth
| visiting!
| faramarz wrote:
| its a professional contact list is all it is, for me anyway.
| its where I go to gather intel on a person/company or where I
| go to lookup a contact for an outreac
| pndy wrote:
| That kind of supposedly successful people who you can find on
| "normal" platforms as well. The difference is that they wrap
| everything in this weird language.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/23/corporate-s...
| & https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47274676 discussion
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01918...
|
| It might be not obvious for those living in English-speaking
| countries but amount of native words replaced by this corporate
| jargon is irritating
| stainablesteel wrote:
| completed deleted my linkedin, it's not even the least bit
| useful. it's full of fake stories and communication that sounds
| more robotic than human
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| It's a social network for employment. If you want to employ, or
| be employed, that's the social network for that.
| dave333 wrote:
| Now I'm retired, linkedin's daily games are a fun way to do a
| little brain tai chi. Queens
| https://www.linkedin.com/games/queens/ is my favorite, although
| my solve time is consistently about twice the average apparently.
| mckirk wrote:
| I have to admit that this is also what keeps me coming back to
| LinkedIn. My brain is dangerously easy to motivate by dangling
| a virtual leaderboard in front of it.
| gessha wrote:
| But there's so many good games out there. Check out
| Zachtronics/Coincidence.games for some cool examples. Walk to
| a bookstore and get one of their many sudoku/puzzle books.
| Check out the App Store for some puzzle games. Write your own
| puzzle game!
| kristopolous wrote:
| Always thought people should be organizing cross industry unions
| and planning strikes on the platform.
|
| Why not?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Most of the heavies in my industry don't even bother with
| linkedin. They get plenty of applications on their career pages
| already I guess. Only really startups (which aren't really
| hiring at all) and the occasional blast from a middle weight
| company. There are more jobs for ai trainer than real jobs on
| linkedin right now.
| dzonga wrote:
| for jobs - indeed is better or other small avenues in their
| heyday such as HN who is hiring (all my jobs have come through
| hn)
|
| other avenues - local slack channels.
|
| linkedIn - good for initial connection with strangers you don't
| know and might find valuable
|
| linkedIn - good for keeping tabs on companies or new startups
| catcowcostume wrote:
| ??? Who outside of startups (in a professional environment)
| even use Slack?
| sp1982 wrote:
| try https://corvi.careers I been building it purely as job
| search platform, has good coverage of startups and public
| companies but I'd still recommend to use LI for network tho
| mrweasel wrote:
| It probably depend on where you live and who you are. LinkedIn
| is my backup in case of a layoff. It's the site where I can
| reach everyone who worked with me or have made offers in the
| past.
|
| If you do what I do, live in my general area and know the right
| people (which I do), LinkedIn will get you an interview or
| three lined up in a day or two. None of these people are on
| Indeed, HackerNews or even Slack.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I think before linkedin people were doing this with email and
| phone. Literally cold calling your old coworkers. Not sure
| linkedin really created anything that didn't exist previously
| especially if you live in some major hub of industry as you
| indicate.
| mrweasel wrote:
| It did make it easier though. I don't have to keep a list
| of potentially outdated phone numbers and email adresses.
| LinkedIn makes it much simpler to broadcast your
| availability.
|
| Most of LinkedIn is just garbage though, especially if you
| somehow connected with social-media people or marketing
| people. Marketing people on LinkedIn are weird, they can't
| form coherent sentences and they can't even sell
| themselves.
|
| You could strip down LinkedIn down to your resume,
| availability status and your email address and it would be
| fine.
| __natty__ wrote:
| And on the same topic again, it's not "LinkedIn" but some
| managers most likely in marketing and tech who allowed this
| amount of bloatware. And I won't believe this RAM usage is really
| needed just for displaying static content or chat. It's like
| always trackers and ads.
| lucb1e wrote:
| AWS has a similar RAM consumption. I close Signal to make sure it
| doesn't crash and corrupt the message history when I need to open
| more than one browser tab with AWS in the work VM. I think after
| you click a few pages, one AWS tab was something like 1.4GB
| (edit: found it in message history, yes it was "20% of 7GB" =
| 1.4GB precisely)
|
| Does anyone else have the feeling they run into this sort of
| thing more often of late? Simple pages with just text on it that
| take gigabytes (AWS), or pages that look simple but it takes your
| browser everything it has to render it at what looks like 22 fps?
| (Reddit's new UI and various blogs I've come across.) Or the page
| runs smoothly but your CPU lifts off while the tab is in the
| foreground? (e.g. DeepL's translator)
|
| Every time I wonder if they had an LLM try to get some new
| feature or bugfix to work and it made poor choices performance-
| wise, but it completes unit tests so the LLM thinks it's done and
| also visually looks good on their epic developer machines
| r_lee wrote:
| I think a big problem is the fact that many web frameworks
| allow you to write these kind of complex apps that just "work"
| but performance is often not included in the equation
|
| so it looks fine during basic testing but it scales really bad.
|
| like for example claude/openAI web UIs, they at first would
| literally lag so bad because they'd just use simple updating
| mechanisms which would re-render the entire conversation
| history every time the new response text was updated
|
| and with those console UIs, one thing that might be happening
| is that it's basically multiple webapps layered (per
| team/component/product) and they all load the same stuff
| multiple times etc...
| taminka wrote:
| it's unironically just react lmao, virtually every popular
| react app has an insane number of accidental rerenders
| triggered by virtually everything, causing it to lag a lot
| r_lee wrote:
| well that's any framework with vdom, the GC of web
| frameworks, so I'd imagine it's also a problem with vue
| etc..
|
| I don't understand though why performance (I.e. using it
| properly) is not a consideration with these companies that
| are valued above $100 billion
|
| like, do these poor pitiful big tech companies only have
| the resources to do so when they hit the 2 trillion mark or
| something?
| vscode-rest wrote:
| Nobody gets promoted for improving web app performance.
| r_lee wrote:
| yep. I think this is the root problem, not the frameworks
| themselves
| cess11 wrote:
| If it's slow people also stick around for longer if they
| have something they must accomplish before leaving.
| array_key_first wrote:
| It's not a problem with vue or svelte because they are,
| ironically, reactive. React greedily rerenders.
|
| It's also not a problem with the react compiler.
| yurishimo wrote:
| Vue uses signals for reactivity now and has for years.
| Alien signals was discovered by a Vue contributor. Vue
| 3.6 (now in alpha/beta?) will ship a version that is
| essentially a Vue flavored Svelte with extreme fine
| grained reactivity based on a custom compiler step.
|
| One of the reasons Vue has such a loyal community is
| because the framework continues to improve performance
| without forcing you to adopt new syntax every 18 months
| because the framework authors got bored.
| rustystump wrote:
| I think linkedin is built with emberjs not react last i
| checked...
|
| The problem with performance in wep apps is often not the
| omg too much render. But is actually processing and memory
| use. Chromium loves to eat as much ram as possible and the
| state management world of web apps loves immutability. What
| happens when you create new state anytime something changes
| and v8 then needs to recompile an optimized structure for
| that state coupled with thrashing the gc? You already know.
|
| I hate the immutable trend in wep apps. I get it but the
| performance is dogshite. Most web apps i have worked on
| spend about 10% of their cpu time...garbage collecting and
| the rest doing complicated deep state comparisons every
| time you hover on a button.
|
| Rant over.
| machomaster wrote:
| The Grok android app is terrible in that sense. Just writing
| a question with a normal speed will make half of the
| characters not appear due to whatever unoptimized shit the
| app does after each keystroke.
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| Sounds quite overengineered. CEOs have basically no idea
| what they're doing these days. If this were my company, I'd
| start by cutting 80% of staff and 80% of the code bloat.
| userbinator wrote:
| Don't know if this is satire, but I do wonder if Musk
| uses the Grok app himself.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Yes, its sometimes extreme. I often wondered if it was my FF
| browser, but then i'd switch to Opera or Brave, and i would see
| the same pattern.
|
| Its quite insane
| maccard wrote:
| My company started using slack in 2015 and at that time I put
| in a bug report to slack that their desktop app was using more
| memory than my IDE on a 1M+LOC C++ project. I used to stop
| slack to compile...
| hobobaggins wrote:
| It's always good to not slack when compiling.
| antod wrote:
| Just to clarify for other readers, sword fighting while
| riding office chairs is not slacking.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| The bug in Slack is that it uses Electron
| reddalo wrote:
| Electron has been a blessing and a horrible thing at the
| same time.
| inaros wrote:
| What us this AWS you talk about? :-)
| lucb1e wrote:
| my employer's choice of premium hosting provider
| inaros wrote:
| I know what AWS is...that is why your statement
|
| >> AWS has a similar RAM consumption.
|
| Makes no sense to me...
| tandr wrote:
| I think they are talking about AWS dashboard, but I might
| be wrong.
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| the web interface
| mr_toad wrote:
| The official name is the AWS management console. Or just
| the console.
|
| The 'dashboard', the 'interface'? Reminds me of coworkers
| who used to refer to desktop PC cases as the hard drive,
| or people who refer to the web as 'Google'.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Ah, now I understand your question (and see others
| already answered). Yeah, I realized that possible
| confusion after writing it, but hoped it was clear enough
| after editing in the bit about this AWS problem being in
| a browser tab. You may have seen the initial version, or
| it may still have been too confusing. Whoops
| susupro1 wrote:
| Hit this exact wall with desktop wrappers. I was shipping an
| 800MB Electron binary just to orchestrate a local video
| processing pipeline.
|
| Moved the backend to Tauri v2 and decoupled heavy dependencies
| (like ffmpeg) so they hydrate via Rust at launch. The macOS
| payload dropped to 30MB, and idle RAM settled under 80MB.
|
| Skipping the default Chromium bundle saves an absurd amount of
| overhead.
| m132 wrote:
| I noticed that there's a developing trend of "who manages to
| use the most CSS filters" among web developers, and it was
| there even before LLMs. Now that most of the web is slop in one
| form or another, and LLMs seem to have been trained on the
| worst of the worst, every other website uses an obscene amount
| of CSS backdrop-filter blur, which slows down software
| renderers and systems with older GPUs to a crawl.
|
| When it comes to DeepL specifically, I once opened their main
| page and left my laptop for an hour, only to come back to it
| being steaming hot. Turns out there's a video around the bottom
| of the page (the "DeepL AI Labs" section) that got stuck in a
| SEEKING state, repeatedly triggering a pile of NextJS/React
| crap which would seek the video back, causing the SEEKING event
| and thus itself to be triggered again.
|
| I wish Google would add client-side resource use to Web Vitals
| and start demoting poorly performing pages. I'm afraid this
| isn't going to change otherwise; with first complaints dating
| back to mid-2010s, browsers and Electron apps hogging RAM are
| far from new and yet web developers have only been getting
| increasingly disconnected from reality.
| RunSet wrote:
| > Does anyone else have the feeling they run into this sort of
| thing more often of late? Simple pages with just text on it
| that take gigabytes (AWS), or pages that look simple but it
| takes your browser everything it has to render it at what looks
| like 22 fps?
|
| It is to do with websites essentially baking in their own
| browser written in javascript to track as much user behavior as
| possible.
| lstodd wrote:
| Spot on. It's why I quit adtech in 2015. Running realtime
| auctions server-side is one thing, but building what
| basically amounts to live-feed screen capture ..
| christophilus wrote:
| I was researching laptops at BestBuy and every page took ages
| to load, was choppy when scrolling, caused my iPhone 13 mini to
| get uncomfortably hot in my hand and drained my battery _fast_.
| It wouldn't be noticeably different if they were crypto-mining
| on my iPhone as I browsed their inventory.
|
| It's astonishing how bad the experience was.
| hobobaggins wrote:
| Best Buy is actually one of the worst and slowest websites
| from any large retailer. I cannot believe how bad it is. It's
| like they set out to make it pretty and accidentally stepped
| in molasses.
| jimbobimbo wrote:
| The irony! My router died literally an hour ago, and I was
| on bestbuy to buy a new one. Over 5g connection. That was
| probably the worst shopping experience I had in a while...
| ssss11 wrote:
| So many sites.. they're all built as web apps these days when
| they don't need to be. And they're all full of tracking and
| "telemetry"........
| userbinator wrote:
| If you're talking about the AWS management UI, I haven't used
| it recently but can tell you that the Azure one is no better.
| One of the stupidest things I remember is that it somehow
| managed to reimplement a file upload form for one of their
| storage services such that it will attempt to _read the whole
| file into memory_ before sending it to the server. For a
| storage service meant for very large files (dozens of gigabytes
| or more).
| barbegal wrote:
| I don't understand why people get so hung up on Chrome using so
| much memory. A lot of this memory is "discardable" so will get
| dropped when the system is under memory pressure and the amount
| of memory allocated for this type of usage will depend on how
| much memory your system has available. If Chrome is using lots of
| memory then it's almost always because your system has lots of
| available memory. It allows the browser to cache large images and
| video assets that would otherwise have to be re-downloaded over
| the internet.
| progval wrote:
| It's memory that the kernel cannot use to cache other
| applications' files.
| surajrmal wrote:
| This isn't true for OS like Windows where the kernel is
| informed that the memory is discardable and it can prioritize
| discarding that memory as necessary. It's a shame that Linux
| doesn't have something similar.
| progval wrote:
| Linux supports it too through madvise():
| MADV_FREE (since Linux 4.5) The
| application no longer requires the pages in the range
| specified by addr and size. The kernel can thus free these
| pages, but the freeing could be delayed until memory
| pressure occurs.
|
| and MADV_DONTNEED Do
| not expect access in the near future. (For the time
| being, the application is finished with the given range, so
| the kernel can free resources associated with it.)
| After a successful MADV_DONTNEED operation, the semantics
| of memory access in the specified region are changed:
| subsequent accesses of pages in the range will succeed, but
| will result in either repopulating the memory contents from
| the up-to-date contents of the underlying mapped file (for
| shared file mappings, shared anonymous mappings, and shmem-
| based techniques such as System V shared memory segments)
| or zero-fill-on-demand pages for anonymous private
| mappings.
|
| Does Chrome use it, though?
| general_reveal wrote:
| Um.
|
| The websites are jam packed with trackers and ads. I am utterly
| concerned about Chrome's memory usage because it's passively
| allowing this all to occur.
|
| How about you let me blacklist sites that are using too much
| memory automatically, all that means is that those website
| owners FUCKING HATE THE REST OF US.
|
| Any solution to this epic fucking problem would be wonderful.
| lucasfin000 wrote:
| uBlock origin on Firefox or Brave, which will block most of
| the tracker bloat, causing the RAM spike. It's not a perfect
| fix, but it will cut out a significant chunk of it. Tab
| Wrangler also helps by suspending inactive tabs
| automatically. You should try out both.
| temp0826 wrote:
| Step 0- don't use a browser created by an ad company
| lucb1e wrote:
| Or another process will die at random instead, which might be
| your desktop environment, the main browser process, Signal (10%
| chance at corrupting message history each time), a large image
| you were working on in Gimp...
|
| Firefox has gotten very good at safely handling allocation
| failures, so instead of crashing it keeps your memory snugly at
| 100% full and renders your system entirely unusable until the
| kernel figures out (2-20 minutes later) that it really cannot
| allocate a single kilobyte anymore and it decides to run the
| OOM killer
|
| but also
|
| it's not cheap? Why should everyone upgrade to 32GB RAM to
| multitask when all the text, images, and data structures in
| open programs take only a few megabytes each? How can you _not_
| get hung up about the senseless exploding memory usage
| surajrmal wrote:
| That's not how it works. Process killing is one of the last
| ways memory is recovered. Chrome starts donating memory back
| well before that happens. Try compiling something and see how
| ram usage in chrome changes when you do that. Most of your
| tabs will be discarded.
| lucb1e wrote:
| I've already described above what the browser's behavior
| is. That your browser works differently is good for you;
| I'm not using a Google product as my main browser. There
| are also other downsides that this other behavior does not
| fix, mentioned in sibling comments
| surajrmal wrote:
| This is not a chrome problem but an OS problem. Android
| does a much better job here by comparison. Desktop Linux
| is simply not well optimized for low RAM users.
| Pannoniae wrote:
| I dunno I have 96GB of RAM and I still get the whole "system
| dies due to resource exhaustion" thing. Yesterday I managed
| to somehow crash DWM from handle exhaustion. Man, people
| really waste resources....
| maccard wrote:
| I want my compiler, language server IDE, to do that not
| LinkedIn
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Well, a few GB here and a few GB there, soon you're talking
| about real RAM issues.
|
| The other day Safari was using over 50GB with only a few tabs
| open.
|
| Maybe we should also acknowledge that some companies
| particularly have no compassion for users (and their desires or
| needs) and see them as hurdles in their way to take money from
| users.
| kalleboo wrote:
| I use a Mac which has really good memory management but still
| seeing that 10 GB of my SSD is clogged up with useless crap
| just because modern development systems are complete and utter
| crap feels bad.
|
| March is "MARCHintosh" month for retro Macintosh computing, for
| fun I wrote a networked chat client. It has some creature
| comfort features like loading in chat history from the server,
| mentions, user info, background notifications, multiple
| session. It runs in 128 kilobytes of RAM.
|
| Automatic garbage collection memory management was a mistake.
| The memory leaks we had when people forgot to free memory was
| nothing compares to the memory leaks we have now when people
| don't even consider what memory is.
| g947o wrote:
| Reclaiming memory is not free.
|
| It's better not to use 2.4G RAM in the first place. Imagine
| LinkedIn isn't so hostile to users and instead actually cares
| about user experience.
| steveharing1 wrote:
| For sure there is more to what they just show
| user070223 wrote:
| Github hogging cpu when js is turned off
| fredgrott wrote:
| LinkedIN, showing why Reactive is such a good idea by refusing to
| use it....
|
| No joke, app constantly shows stale posts and stories,,almost
| like their devs do not understand what the limits to MVVM are for
| state....rookie mistake
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| And also keeps showing a red dot on the feeds tab every time
| you navigate to another screen, so that they can trick you with
| interacting with one more ad.
|
| Just like how Netflix makes you scroll through a bunch of
| shows, just to get back to what you were watching. It's a way
| of forced interaction.
|
| We're slowly getting into the black mirror territory.
| throwatdem12311 wrote:
| Don't go on that god forsaken hellhole of a dead internet
| website. Problem solved.
| delduca wrote:
| LinkedIn is full of crap. Unfortunately is the only way to get
| recruiters visibility.
| bvan wrote:
| As much as you all dislike LinkedIn and the cringy posts, keep in
| mind that for certain parts of the market it is >the< main
| professional forum. It is where your investors live, and their
| capital providers live. So, play nice, yeah?
| xantronix wrote:
| Actually I think I'll play mean, specifically _because_ I want
| to be radioactive to investors and private equity. I sincerely
| believe there is a better way to exist and work without being
| beholden to a system that incentivises quarterly thinking at
| the cost of everything else.
| debesyla wrote:
| For sure higher quality social network than Facebook. I
| personally like it. (Note that I follow only lithuanian posts.
| It may be our local language specifics.)
| jnovek wrote:
| I think I've legitimately taken career hits because I cannot
| stomach it. The culture of LinkedIn is absolutely repulsive to
| me.
| isatty wrote:
| I give 0 fucks about it.
| graysonk wrote:
| "What trying to protect the feelings of a group of people who
| will never care about me taught me about b2b sales"
| Aurornis wrote:
| The VCs I know think the LinkedIn feed is a joke, too.
|
| Most people use it for messaging and keeping contacts. The feed
| and the posturing that occurs on it is a weird sideshow.
| phyzome wrote:
| I sell my labor. I don't sell my respect.
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| I know a lot of people who use LinkedIn, and I don't think any
| of them are happy with their job. Play stupid games, win stupid
| prizes.
| mwkaufma wrote:
| What does that have to do with RAM?
| bvan wrote:
| Absolutely nothing, as 99% of comments to the post. But it is
| the norm on HN it seems.
| mwkaufma wrote:
| bootlicker commentariat
| sgustard wrote:
| Yep, I've co-founded several companies and sold them for near
| $1B in aggregate. My investors and customers are on there,
| sometimes posting nice things about us. So I give it a thumbs-
| up and move on. Nothing worth rage-bating about. Mostly I go
| there to play linkedin.com/games.
| rixed wrote:
| Not only it's huge and slow, but the design is broken (some
| elements frequently masking others, like the top banner masking
| half the top menu, or the icons masking the search box), and it's
| full of errors.
|
| I had to use it this very morning (yes, that's a new low) and met
| two errors in two pages. Asked Claude about those bugs, and it
| made fun of me because they were well known bugs. Even for AIs
| LinkedIn website is slop apparently.
|
| This HN post to collectively vent some frustration comes in a
| timely fashion.
|
| (For the record: the first bug was "another admin is already
| editing this page" making it impossible to edit a business page
| translations, and the next one was wrong people count when
| associating personnal profiles to business ones).
| eclipticplane wrote:
| I wonder how much of that is from Linkedin checking what browser
| extensions you have, probably desperately trying to prevent
| screen scraping?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46904361
| Aurornis wrote:
| That code is minimal. It's definitely not the source.
|
| Given all the sales and recruiting spam I get, I think it's a
| good thing that LinkedIn is making efforts to detect people
| using garbage plugins that scrape data and send it to their
| servers or prepare it for mass spamming.
| SilasX wrote:
| Really? Then why else do adblockers seem to take up so much
| memory, other than an arms race with countermeasures that
| sites take?
| b8 wrote:
| So I pay for Global Entry only to have to play for Clear for
| faster screening. Now I have to pay another fee for a different
| service to get thru it faster AGAIN. I'm tired of the pay to win
| situation.
| davisr wrote:
| [flagged]
| cmiles8 wrote:
| Beyond being useful for a quick check on someone's career
| history, LinkedIn is mostly full of grifters pretending to be
| experts in things while the actual experts never post about the
| subject on LinkedIn.
| inetknght wrote:
| It also constantly uses about 50% of my CPU.
|
| I only open LinkedIn... very rarely. When done, I just close it.
|
| Don't scroll. Don't read stories. Don't do anything except
| message recruiters. Get them into email or a phone call. That's
| it. Fuck LinkedIn.
| neeeeeeal wrote:
| Is it not possible to collar the amount of RAM a browser tab is
| able to use? If not, would love for someone to develop this!
| enesozt wrote:
| I rarely use Linkedin but for my new app that I'm building the
| Linkedin is good platform to find out & engage possible customers
| so last few weeks I'm using it more. But man.. so sorry for
| people using it daily. Such a bad experience. I didn't surprise
| it takes that amount of RAM because every component in the page
| is laggy, you feel very unsafe. You're getting some error but you
| have no idea what it is. Don't wanna mention about the content at
| all. But like many people mentioned in the comments it's still
| the number one place for their work
| aquir wrote:
| Web developers of HN: how is this possible? What can use 1.2GB
| RAM for a website? Preloaded all videos?
| xantronix wrote:
| That's the sort of question a reasonable person would ask. To
| answer this correctly, you need to occupy the mind of a madman.
| Now, we've got a boatload of KPIs to optimise or our necks are
| on the chopping block!
| lkbm wrote:
| Keep in mind this is memory used by a browser tab, not "how bug
| the website is". Probably a memory leak as the feed is scrolled
| or something, but it _is_ a massive download when you first
| load the page.
|
| I'm seeing 72MB in the network tab (7MB transferred--that's due
| to compression). An incredible 10MB is HTML (800K transferred),
| a more incredible 11MB of CSS (500K transferred), 25MB of JS
| (3MB transferred), 16MB XHR (1MB), 17MB images (1.7MB
| transferred).
|
| A lot of the HTML is inline JS in `window.__como_rehydration__`
| -- letting a server-side rendered be dynamic as if it were
| fully client-side rendered.
|
| The size of the CSS also presents in bloated HTML. Why not have
| 18 classes on your button? `<button class="_5732bd68 _4cbf0195
| _00dac29f _737a8a8c b241f848 _9572431e _56fd9a8a ff367c5b
| f7a6e63a aa661bbd b1e8a5cc d6e0deb3 _0582e059 f7e4b8f0 f9d5d3fb
| e037a5e8 _340d09d4 fbc7d17b" ...`
| jackkinsella wrote:
| Probably a memory leak
|
| But other ideas: - all pages of FE site loaded at once instead
| as as needed - FE indexed search engine - bug rendering too
| many invisible HTML elements (eg 1M select boxes)
| SilasX wrote:
| Then why does pretty much every site seem to have a "memory
| leak" of this type (besides unicorns like HN that try to be
| minimal)?
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Honestly, while I'm sure Linked is bloated, HN in Chrome is
| taking 204meg for the front page on my MBP. That's with no
| images, no videos, a minimal amount of css.
| `document.body.textContent.length` says 4278
|
| Checking again it went down to 78meg. Still 78MEG!!! Thats over
| 1200 Apple IIs, Commodore 64s. I use to run Windows 3.1 for
| Workgroups, and in it run Microsoft Word, Excel, etc, on
| machines with 4meg. Now, a simple page of text is taking 78
|
| I get why to some degree. It's highres 32bit display, multi-
| layered. The screen itself requires 36meg (40bit RGBA, 40bit
| because it's an HDR display). Each window itself is a texture.
| If the window is the same size as the screen then that's 36meg.
| Font Glpyhs are high-res antialias.
|
| Compare that to my Windows 3.1 machine. OSes didn't use
| textures then and didn't anti-alias. GPUs didn't exist and the
| screen was 1024x768 or something small like that. Software
| rendering from fonts that were 1 bit per pixel.
|
| I'm not saying that excuses browsers nor LinkedIn. Rather, if
| you go add up the basic pieces you'll find that part of the
| reason these things take lots of memory is because these things
| take lots of memory.
| z3ratul163071 wrote:
| well it is a microslop product, what do you expect?
| raffael_de wrote:
| uBlock Origin -> My Filters:
| www.linkedin.com##div[data-testid="mainFeed"]:matches-path(/feed)
| rollulus wrote:
| They do other unholy things. I don't know what, but consistently
| while playing music on my HomePod opening that site makes it
| stutter within a few minutes, fully stop working shortly
| afterwards and it needs a reboot to work again.
| haunter wrote:
| Not for me even if I completetly turn off uBlock
| https://files.catbox.moe/5a3bcq.png
| astrospective wrote:
| I keep my profile updated as a consultant because it lets clients
| and others in my company get a fuller gauge than my one pager.
| I've also got my most recent and prior job from having a price
| and responding to the right recruiter, I've also had a handful of
| interviews as well, which is honestly more than I've gotten from
| trying to apply to random job board postings.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I know I'm old, but I now find LinkedIn to be my favorite social
| media site, and I'll explain why.
|
| Skin in the game. Yes, it's full of fluffy sounding things, but
| with a little patience and reading between lines, it's extremely
| valuable and here's why:
|
| Overwhelmingly most of the time -- when someone posts anything
| there -- it has the potential to directly quickly improve, or
| more importantly destroy, their own LIVELIHOOD. It feels like the
| opposite, but making the choice to post there is a huge risk.
|
| Now, that might come with fluff, of course -- but in a way you
| could reasonably argue it is the REALEST social media site of
| them all.
| adi_pradhan wrote:
| LOL you've nailed LinkedinSpeak here
| jrm4 wrote:
| Let me try again, then
|
| If you fuck up badly on here, no one cares at all
|
| If you fuck up badly on Twitter, maybe someone cares
|
| If you fuck up badly on Facebook, people you know find out,
| maybe no one else.
|
| If you fuck up badly on LinkedIn, you have to find a new job
| and you've stained yourself in this market.
|
| Thus, anyone posting to LinkedIn is subconsciously saying --
| I'm aware that this might STRONGLY hinder my ability to eat
| but I'm posting it anyway because I think it is that
| important for some reason. (now that REASON may be fluffy,
| but still.)
| ramon156 wrote:
| Oh, you were not joking.
|
| No, people do not care. You're not a celeb. This is
| textbook spotlight effect.
|
| Your life becomes a lot more enjoyable if you don't take
| yourself so serious, try it sometime
| jrm4 wrote:
| I generally agree with what you're saying here -- I don't
| mean that "other people ACTUALLY care."
|
| I suppose -- I'm trying to explain why I believe the
| choice, and thus the material itself, to post LinkedIn
| might be special in a way that the rest might not?
|
| Like I'm guessing a lot of people do fall into the
| "spotlight effect" and that affects what is posted.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I disagree completely. If you post something racist on
| LinkedIn you're probably going to lose your job. Try it,
| if you don't believe me. If you post something racist
| here you're going to get downvoted.
| mancerayder wrote:
| This can be read as why to avoid LinkedIn. Job searching is
| already hard, if you manage to land an interview you still
| have to spend time, as an old dude, studying Leetcode like
| you're a kid with five years experience instead of twenty.
| Then it's competitive. Etc.
|
| So to this you wish to add the increased risk of negative
| exposure by saying a bad thing? Or that someone, someones,
| or people five years from today consider a bad thing?
|
| I love writing and posting and engaging (you can tell from
| my history here alone), but I'm not crazy enough to risk
| spilling my feelings on a site full of people in suits and
| ties, with Leader next to their names.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I agree with you generally; what I am saying here right
| now is that how people behave on LinkedIn creates an
| interesting filter for content in this way in the
| present, without saying necessarily SHOULD people behave
| this way.
| podgorniy wrote:
| > destroy, their own LIVELIHOOD
|
| Do you have examples of such occasions when the linkedin post
| was actually the cause?
| phyzome wrote:
| There was a bit of a scandal at my employer some years back
| and IIRC it was kicked off by someone posting/boosting some
| really questionable stuff on LinkedIn.
|
| Amusingly, this was someone high up in HR.
| dijit wrote:
| My postings on LinkedIn have definitely had direct
| consequences in my professional life.
|
| I consider them _all_ good because ultimately if you get
| upset by the way I behave then that 's probably going to be
| true if we work together also.
|
| Sometimes people like to tell me that I'm very authentic and
| it's clear that I'm not trying to suck up to anyone, which
| they respect. Some people quietly retreat from me and I find
| out later that it's because I hurt their feelings
| inadvertently by shitting on AI or calling out web
| development as largely being inefficient in resources or
| something.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Love this response, and as some one who does perhaps a bit
| too much spending/wasting time on other types of social
| media, including here, I've made a conscious decision to
| post on LinkedIn more.
|
| And it's _such_ a difference. It forces me to slow down and
| think about a lot of things. The most important being: Is
| this even worth posting AT ALL?
|
| And then, okay -- how can I say this in a future-proof way
| that both appeals to normies and tech folk like myself. I
| feel like I'll be doing better the more I post to places
| like that, and maybe less here?
| jrm4 wrote:
| No, but as I've said below, this isn't about what will
| actually strongly happen, but what I think people think. I
| could be wrong here.
| kmijyiyxfbklao wrote:
| Well if that gets us LinkedIn, we should move as far away from
| that as possible, and not listen to the people who want real
| names everywhere.
| p_ing wrote:
| This isn't all that accurate. Unless Chrome only presents the
| private working set, this will include shared or sharable memory.
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| Closed mine ages ago, along with most of my social media. No need
| for it, never was a need for it.
| alyandon wrote:
| Back in the ancient days of the web, browsers allowed you to set
| resource limits (ram, cache, etc) to prevent websites from
| hogging the limited resources of your desktop system.
|
| It's really a shame that all major browsers have since decided
| that you as a user should have almost no control over how much
| ram and storage any arbitrary website can consume now.
| dijit wrote:
| Goes with the territory of allowing remote code execution
| arbitrarily and all the time otherwise you won't be able to..
|
| * checks notes *
|
| read text on the internet.
| eximius wrote:
| Let's be real, LinkedIn is full of LinkedIn Lunatics but pretty
| much all mainstream social media is pretty shit. They're just
| different flavors of shit. LinkedIn: bad. Facebook: bad. Twitter:
| I literally think it contributed to the collapse of discourse and
| rise of shallow thought / rejection of expertise. I'm not going
| to list more because the theme is, you guessed it, they're bad.
|
| Google+ had promise in that the many problems of the other
| platforms could be curtailed with tooling to make your social
| experience effectively local (not necessarily geographically).
| estebank wrote:
| Social media being bad is partly because of shady business
| practices, and partly because a lot of people suck (in
| different ways, at different times, including us).
|
| Having said that all of that, have you tried mastodon?
| eximius wrote:
| Mastodon, Bluesky, etc are neat - both in what they're trying
| to be and their technology. But ultimately these days I
| reject them in favor of more local socialization (again, not
| geographically). What this looks like is a constellation of
| private (or pseudo private) discord communities. If I make
| friends in one, I often get invited to another. I recognize
| the merit in broader social forums like Mastodon, but it is
| not worth the drawbacks to me.
|
| As an aside, I'm not happy with Discord as a platform so I'm
| working on my own clone with some common identity stuff but
| with community servers run independently. That is, there are
| some "federated" identity providers so community servers can
| agree on identity across servers, then each community server
| runs its own thing. The trust model is based on the community
| server - private channels in a community server are not E2E
| encrypted, you must trust the server. But DMs and DM groups
| are E2E encrypted and use mutual community servers as relays
| (with a special class of relay server for people who want to
| DM but don't have an actual mutual server). I'm having fun
| with it. Now if only I could figure out why my video has such
| high latency (even locally!).
| deanishe wrote:
| A large part of the problem, imo, is that people haven't used
| the ability to talk to the entire planet as an opportunity to
| broaden their horizons, but to build themselves a
| transnational bubble of like-minded individuals.
|
| Once upon a time, shouting "WTF are they thinking?" into the
| void was kinda understandable, but these days you can
| literally just ask them by changing a URL. Don't even have to
| go to a dodgy pub in an iffy part of town.
|
| That said, assuming bad faith is so common these days, many
| people assume you're lying if your stated motives don't match
| their preconceptions.
| rglover wrote:
| > That said, assuming bad faith is so common these days,
| many people assume you're lying if your stated motives
| don't match their preconceptions.
|
| A brutal reality to navigate if you're not acting in bad
| faith.
| mahirsaid wrote:
| Im pretty sure that is the current sentiment amongst the
| judicial body at the moment, Meta and Google have been taking
| blows left and right. They are also not allowing else to take
| shape that might make their business model obsolete. With all
| that we have more and more laws that are redistricting the use
| of social media by their own bad doing. So if another company
| wants to offer something innovative, now they have an unfair
| playing ground due to the enormous amount of regulation that
| are NOW being implemented. Another words the longer these large
| tech companies are able to keep their business the harder it is
| for innovation in this sector from other players. The spill
| over to polotics is dangerous and counter-productive to
| innovating technology.
| salawat wrote:
| When your definition of innovation includes "move fast, break
| things, ignore regulations until you can scale big enough for
| the lawyers hopefully to outpace the legal system" it is
| arguable that any of that should be allowed at all. There's
| room for leniency for innovation sake, then there's building
| the wrong damn thing and not taking no for an answer when you
| should. Tech is beyond that point by leaps and bounds.
| fritzo wrote:
| Sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly is the distinction
| between hn and social media? Is it the personalization that
| distinguishes the two? Does "social" mean "feed depends on
| graph neighborhood"? So collaborative filtering + ranking
| algorithms + moderation is not social media until you add graph
| neighborhoods?
| serf wrote:
| well moderation is ubiquitous , but yeah --
| personalization/targeting/social graph are essentially the
| things that people expect out of a social media platform.
|
| I do personally think the karma thing _is_ an aspect ,
| because it 's gamed _everywhere_ to huge advantage -- but the
| altruistic view is that its a branch of moderation, an effort
| to democratize the removal of obviously bad actors while
| still facilitating dissenting or contrary speech.
|
| I also know that's a naive view.
| kingstnap wrote:
| A big difference is that its culture comes from shared public
| experience. Everyone sees the same front page not a curated
| one.
| pndy wrote:
| That'd be the thing indeed.
|
| hn is largely a technology oriented link aggregator with
| discussions, and probably some would also classify it as a
| forum. Or as social news site as goes on wikipedia among
| fark, slashdot and reddit. But beside a voting system, simple
| profiles there's nothing else - this is nearly an experience
| unlike anything large social network services offer.
|
| A typical social media platform mainly exists around main
| stream/feed, sharing content and building profile or groups
| dedicated to particular topics or around known brands. That's
| of course the perfect unstained image because everything
| falls apart when we start getting into the details, such as
| algorithms in the work, content quality and moderation and so
| on.
| zero-st4rs wrote:
| I think the distinction is pretty easy imo. HN is topic
| centered, Social Media is person-centered. Before MySpace
| there was a pretty big proliferation of forums and other
| topic centered discourse. The profile was such a minor part
| of those tools.
|
| When MySpace came out, the profile was the home page for a
| lot of people, and the content orbited around that. Coupled
| with the mass movement to represent oneself faithfully online
| as in the real world, (maybe for banking, maybe for
| surveillance), I think social media sort of operates as a
| trap. On facebook, you are encouraged to upload your real
| photos of drunken night out, family vacation, or whatever IDs
| you in life. On LinkedIn this is mandatory, your "avatar"
| must mirror your physical self. I have a lot to say on this,
| but I think I'll just leave it at topic vs profile.
| kelnos wrote:
| I would say yes, that's a good way to make the distinction.
| It's even more than that: the feed is different for every
| single user.
|
| With a site like HN, everyone sees the same front page at a
| given time. What makes it to the front page is primarily
| determined by all users voting up articles or moderating
| them. Yes, there's some algorithmic sauce behind it that
| weights votes and flags differently based on some other
| criteria, but the dominating factor is user votes and flags.
| And, again, everyone sees the same ordering of articles if
| they load the page at the same time.
|
| HN is centered around topics and articles. Social media is
| centered around individuals and what they personally choose
| to post and promote.
| spike021 wrote:
| social media is only bad if you don't curate what you're
| looking at. most the platforms these days have features to
| block posts containing certain words or hashtags.
|
| i've made a lot of great friends using social media over the
| years both where i live and in other countries.
| LtWorf wrote:
| It's bad because you can't curate it. For example on fb there
| is no way to disable reels.
| spike021 wrote:
| I only use group pages on FB, so there are no reels.
| blharr wrote:
| Most social media is actively against that, _feeding_ you
| recommendations to keep you on the platform.
| spike021 wrote:
| The only site that actively funnels me with recommendations
| is Youtube at this point. In most cases that's fine for my
| taste because I use youtube as more of a learning platform
| for things like car mechanics, photography, etc. So it
| doesn't serve me anything toxic.
|
| For the other social media platforms, my setup shields me
| from that pretty well.
| pndy wrote:
| Please. I have an extensive file with tags I've put into use
| to "curate" content on mastodon and bluesky. It works somehow
| on mastodon but the "main" server in their admins wisdom
| decided recently to remove live feeds to make experience
| supposedly more appealing. And now users are limited either
| to trending or manually searching posts or browsing by tags.
| They seriously limited exploration and interaction with new
| content there.
|
| Bluesky on the other hand still serves me the content I tried
| to block or filter out. And whenever I go into other feeds in
| the end I'll be flooded with never ending stream of x-rated
| drawn content that I don't want to see. Interests set or not
| - I can't escape that stuff. My partner complains for same
| things.
|
| Facebook in my last days there decided to limit posts from my
| friends because I wasn't active enough to feed the algorithm,
| and instead filled main activity stream with generated
| graphics. Instagram was somewhat fine up until bought by
| facebook - after that interacting with any content would
| poison your stream with stuff for months.
|
| Reddit has become an interaction and content clown show once
| they started pushing for this "modern" interface. I won't
| create there account ever again due to how they started
| treating their users.
|
| So there's this "curation" for me.
| pks016 wrote:
| I think Google closed Google+ because it worked as social media
| and they couldn't find better ways to exploit users.
| raphar wrote:
| Fools, they lost a source of very valuable training data.
| nelsonic wrote:
| Nope. Google+ was a ghost town. They made the right call to
| shut it down and focus their efforts on YouTube.
|
| The videos and comments on YT are superb training data,
| every bit as good as Google+ was.
|
| In 2025, YouTube's total revenue (advertising +
| subscriptions like YouTube Premium and TV) surpassed $60
| billion. If they spun out YT it would have a market cap
| $500-600bn putting it in the top 20 companies. Google+
| would never have been worth much as the 7th most popular
| social network.
| shwaj wrote:
| The videos are good training data, but the comments? The
| comment UX is so non-conducive to discussion, and the
| general quality is very low compared to what used to be
| on Google+ (to be fair, the self-selected users of
| Google+ were not representative of the general
| population).
| freehorse wrote:
| > comments on YT are superb training data
|
| This I find hard to believe. Most YT comments are just
| noise. Even the UX of writing comments in YT is just
| terrible. Comments randomly appear and disappear, and you
| are never sure if it is some yt algorithm, a technical
| issue or specific moderation practice. I am pretty sure
| if they valued yt comments as data, they would have put a
| bit more effort into that side of their platform.
| pks016 wrote:
| Ghost town was the best part, for users like me. I didn't
| want another fb or insta. The circles and community were
| great.
| pndy wrote:
| Oh they tried to - in a simple "please fill out the form"
| way. I'll link to my prev comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46425198#46429370
|
| IIRC they tried at some point incorporating G+ on youtube but
| that didn't work either
| tombert wrote:
| I agree with most of what you said, but LinkedIn, at least at a
| superficial level, is the absolute worst to me. It's full of a
| bunch of inspiration-porn bullshit that I find unbelievably
| mind-numbing, but also people treat it like Facebook and post a
| bunch of political and divisive shit on there as well.
|
| I wouldn't care if people posted political and divisive shit,
| and I would really prefer to delete it, but now a lot of job
| applications _require_ that you give them a LinkedIn URL. I 've
| debated putting something like "https://linkedin.dont.have.one"
| or something but I suspect that would immediately put me in the
| reject pile.
|
| So I'm forced to have an account on a shitty product that is
| strictly terrible with not a single redeeming feature and it
| just sort of happened. I guess Microsoft's typical practice, to
| be fair.
| userbinator wrote:
| _now a lot of job applications require that you give them a
| LinkedIn URL._
|
| What types of jobs? I find that very hard to believe.
| tombert wrote:
| I got an email from Indeed for this today: https://job-
| boards.greenhouse.io/doordashusa/jobs/7727512
|
| About 2/3 of the way down you can see LinkedIn Profile, and
| it's a mandatory field.
|
| There are tons though.
| kelnos wrote:
| Agreed. There are lots of people posting shitty things on
| Facebook, Twitter, etc., but on LinkedIn, everyone is so
| _fake_. They 're putting their best professional face on,
| heavily self-censoring themselves, and their content plays to
| the whole "employment culture". It's not even a little bit
| genuine.
| tombert wrote:
| I don't even know why they do it. Everyone knows it's fake
| and performative, this couldn't possibly actually help
| their careers could it?
|
| AI has made it worse, but they were always horrible.
| johanneskanybal wrote:
| I kind of love Linkedin tbh. It's where you get jobs. They
| created Kafka. Definitly don't spend a lot of time there though
| just more if you need a new job.
| the_af wrote:
| How often do people get jobs via LinkedIn? I have never.
|
| Their "social media" aspect sucks. LinkedIn is 99% bullshit
| posts about people hyping up they have "learned lessons" or
| sucking up to whoever just hired them.
|
| Kafka is a neat piece of engineering though, I'll grant you
| that.
| wolvoleo wrote:
| Linkedin is a special kind of shit. It even constantly scans
| for thousands of plugins.
| kube-system wrote:
| LinkedIn has aggressive anti-bot features. I wouldn't be
| surprised if most of that 2.4G is that
| wolvoleo wrote:
| I know but I think it's more of a 'feature' to prevent
| recruiters and advertisers from avoiding their overpriced
| subscriptions and scrape data.
|
| Knowing that doesn't make LinkedIn a better platform in my
| eyes, on the contrary. It's more an 'if you pay you can do
| whatever you want' kinda thing.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| To me LinkedIn always seems like a coporate ad newsfeed for
| adults who subscribe voluntarily to get the stuff? :-)
| hatsix wrote:
| nah, their feed became algo driven just like FB... im
| constantly seeing things that I have no relation to
| snackerblues wrote:
| >Twitter
|
| X*
| ojr wrote:
| hackernews has a good signal to noise ratio, noise is bad
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| Honestly, HN has a lot of people getting infuriated by storms
| in teacups and spouting shit. Definitely an order of
| magnitude better than Reddit or Facebook but still not the
| same as IRL.
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| I was searching for jobs using it a while ago and it consumed 80
| percent of my iphone's battery in under 40 minutes. It's quite
| impressive. Not even highest end mobile games can do that.
| thebeardredis wrote:
| And? Who uses (is used by) Linkedin?
| dijit wrote:
| Nearly all the top level comments are about the value of Linkedin
| _at all_ rather than the technical reasons that 2.4G of RAM for a
| website is atrocious.
|
| Can we talk about how it's possible that any application short of
| video editing can require so much RAM?
|
| In fact, I've done video editing on computers with 1GiB of RAM
| back in 2004 and it worked fine, (for the 1024x768 resolution
| which was en vogue at the time)..
|
| Is linkedin doing something complex? Is there a reason that it
| requires more resources than my entire computer from 20 years
| ago, or my entire operating system, text editor and compiler
| _today_?
| cuevaio wrote:
| whatttt
| denysvitali wrote:
| The juxtaposition between this and "Voyager 1 runs on 69 KB of
| memory and an 8-track tape recorder" is probably the best one
| I've seen in a long time
| nshelia wrote:
| We now have simple chat apps capable of doing almost anything
| LinkedIn does while using under 100 MB of RAM.
| denysvitali wrote:
| A probe collecting data in space takes <70 kB of memory. I
| fail to see how this statement should make me feel happy
| mattmanser wrote:
| As someone was pointing out in a thread the other day about
| memory usage, a lot is fonts and images.
|
| EDIT: Just mind boggling to get d/v'ed for pointing out
| voyager doesn't have to render fonts or images...
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Aka poor resources management.
|
| If you have significantly more images loaded in RAM than
| what fits on your screen, something wrong is going on.
| (Not counting the filesystem cache here, because it works
| in a best effort way).
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| How much? You typically don't want more than a few
| different fonts on a given document. And neither fonts
| nor web images should be bigger than hundreds of
| kilobytes. How do we get to gigs?
| troupo wrote:
| Well, and then you have Claude Code which at one point
| needed 68GB of RAM to run
| https://x.com/jarredsumner/status/2026497606575398987
|
| :)
| ozim wrote:
| Space is mostly empty there is not much interesting stuff
| to collect and who's going to buy that data
|
| LinkedIn on the other hand has user behavior, computer
| details etc. that's a lot of interesting data.
| thephyber wrote:
| I'm guessing you mean "does" in the sense of a user-facing
| feature.
|
| I've heard that LinkedIn searches for several hundred known
| browser plugins to identify potential abusive users. If the
| "simple chat apps" aren't doing that, then it's apples-to-
| oranges.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Voyager 1 is several orders of magnitude simpler as a product
| so it makes sense that it uses several orders of magnitude less
| memory.
| bluedino wrote:
| That was probably an incredible amount of memory back then. And
| it probably cost $1,000 USD for 1KB. Who knows how much
| radiation-hardened space memory was. 10 times that?
| thomasgeelens wrote:
| This right here! I commented about that in that thread, it's
| like: This 5G calls drops, LinkedIN uses GB's of memory, my
| fridge needs an update to get the light on but Voyager 1 is out
| there on 69kb.
| gitmwnkdkc wrote:
| That's nothing. I've seen the Azure portal using >5gb in a single
| chrome tab.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| As someone pointed out below, the problem is not entirely (or
| even mostly) LinkedIn. HN, a text-only website, consumes several
| hundred MB of RAM on his Mac. On Firefox on my Windows computer,
| each HN tab I have open consumes at least 30 MB of RAM...for pure
| text...
|
| The bigger problem is that browsers these days are not very
| resource efficient because the programmers behind them have
| powerful top-of-the-line computers that hide all the
| inefficiencies (or at the very least, computers significantly
| more powerful than what their users use). This is compounded by
| the web developers of most websites also using similarly powerful
| computers for their development, which hides all of the
| inefficiencies in the website code. This leads to the clusterfuck
| of LinkedIn using up 2.4GB of RAM across two tabs (though on my
| computer 2 tabs only uses up about 600 MB even after a few
| minutes of scrolling).
|
| It turns out that focusing on developer productivity to the
| exclusion of the user experience has huge negative externalities.
| Who would have known? (Answer: Literally everybody who was a
| programmer before the developer-first mentality took over tech.)
|
| The solution: make browser and website developers use _slower and
| less powerful computers_ than their average user /visitor will
| use. The performance issues would be identified and addressed
| immediately.
| namegulf wrote:
| We're back in the IE era (now with chrome and other browsers)
| where websites are bloated with ton of js, css, websockets,
| background services hogging memory.
|
| May be its time for browser vendors to show the consumption
| (right now they show memory usage) by features i.e background
| service, websockets, etc.,
|
| With option to disable background service workers.
| torginus wrote:
| While awful I would like for someone to explain what's in that
| 1.3GB.
|
| In fact it's one of my major sources of unsatisfied curiousity is
| for someone to show a breakdown of a memory dump of a browser, to
| see, what happens to those gigabytes of memory consumed.
|
| I have heard an explanation that browsers just use free ram,
| because unused ram is wasted, but that feels flimsy to me. It's
| not the browsers job to hog ram on the off chance it might need
| it, just ask the OS when you actually do.
| system2 wrote:
| I think it is an accomplishment to bloat a website to a point
| where the user needs to download 40-100mb per page. Even if I
| try, I can't find the right JS files to make it that large. How
| do they even make JS files this big?
| ianberdin wrote:
| Are they affiliated with RAM sellers?
| tim333 wrote:
| The behaviour is a bit weird - I just opened mine and in Chrome
| task manager it showed the ram use climbing to 2.8GB, but in the
| network console it only shows a few 10s of mb download. I wonder
| what the discrepancy is? The site seemed to notice the console
| was open and behaved differently also.
| throwaway_19sz wrote:
| I think that's normal, I would expect RAM use to dwarf network
| transfer on most modern JS-heavy sites.
|
| If a page downloads 1MB JSON, that could easily take 10MB
| (maybe much more?) RAM when parsed into an object. And JS code
| itself probably has a similar increase in size just by getting
| parsed into an AST. And all that is before really executing
| anything - once the dozens of shitty third party scripts start
| whirring, they will generate tons of uncollectible garbage
| because they are written by miserable people who don't give a
| shit, understandably. And I bet LinkedIn has a hell of a lot of
| junk third party scripts injected by random spies I working in
| various corporate departments who need to spy on users to
| collect data to persuade their boss to let them do some dumb
| project to prove they deserve their job.
|
| Tabs also render a bunch of compositor layers as bitmaps stored
| in VRAM, or just RAM, for smooth scrolling. Oh and there's the
| DOM, I bet that adds up. I'm probably only scratching the
| surface. There's so much going on in a browser tab. The front
| end is a marvel of engineering. Sites like LinkedIn of course
| exploit this for banal evil, sadly.
| examachine wrote:
| what a useless junk indeed.... terrible code
| gnarlouse wrote:
| You can actually permanently reclaim that memory and prevent this
| bug in the future!
|
| Just close the tabs and never open LinkedIn again.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| I've got one weird trick to lessen your email load, too.
| Bender wrote:
| It's not just memory. I've never been able to scroll back more
| than about 6 days in the LinkedIn feed. I slows to a crawl and
| this was on a gaming machine with 64GB of ram. I tried raising
| all the limits in the browser with only marginal gains. If they
| had an option to instead use pagination with say 100 items per
| page I think it might get a little better.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| I wish someone would build a LinkedIn that was actually good.
| That you could actually do business over, and no I don't mean
| spam people with you BS cold emails which must have a 10000:1
| success rate. I wrote a bit about this almost a decade ago and
| there is nothing.[1]
|
| [1] https://blog.eutopian.io/building-a-better-linkedin/
| reboot81 wrote:
| Its owned by Microsoft. They sell RAM.
| 01jonny01 wrote:
| Notably mentions should be given to Stripe (dashboard) at ~900 MB
| and Youtube.com at ~1 GB on watch pages.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| I remember touring a chemistry lab in college and one student
| asked the panel of chemists how much LinkedIn mattered in their
| industry and they paused until one chemist asks "what is
| LinkedIn?"
| zffr wrote:
| The performance of both the website and the iOS app is also not
| great. On the iOS app, I frequently see frames dropped and
| scrolling is sometimes blocked for up to a second or more at a
| time.
|
| LinkedIn's feed is certainly not simple, but modern iPhones
| should be more than capable of rendering it at 60fps.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-29 23:00 UTC)