Or maybe because some people prefer it?

I've heard of uBlock and I continue to use ABP, so I guess your theory falls flat. :)

ryuuchin wasn't suggesting people like you don't exist, just that such people are not reasonable. Theory holds.

I feel myself being very reasonable. If you disagree, would you mind explaining why or is that unreasonable to ask?

Theory does not hold.

1. uBlock can be configured to show acceptable ads (it’s just opt-in). 2. uBlock is faster than ABP.

So you have zero disadvantages, but one advantage. As a result, it’s strictly superior.

Point 1 is basically what your personal preference is. I prefer it opt out as this will lead to more people supporting websites with ads. (defaults matter, check out organ donor studies on this)

While I admit that ublock is faster, Adblock plus has much better integration and looks better. When it's installed it presents me with very few options and I'm basically good to go without changing and settings.

Additionally I use umatrix which covers and options abp does not,which helps abps speed to almost not matter anymore.

Lastly I would add that the latencies I've measured to be caused by Adblock plus fall almost into the region of "doesn't matter". What little benefit ublock has given me the Times I've tested it was barely worth it.

Purely by "it's faster" you should probably be using ed over any other editor right now since ed is objectively faster than any other POSIX editor. Or pretty much most editors.

>strictly

I'd refrain from using absolutes when making statements about personal opinion. It makes you look like a fool.

>no advantages

As stated earlier, abp has much better integration. It's one advantage vs one advantage.

Seems like personal choice to me.

>Additionally I use umatrix which covers and options abp does not,which helps abps speed to almost not matter anymore.

you realize running abp on top of umatrix is completely redundant, right?

Not at all.

I utilize uMatrix to block unwanted scripts on websites, like some trackers that ABP doesn't catch.

I find uMatrix' AdBlocking potential to be rather lacking, I rely on ABP for that.

They work in perfect harmony.

What's the best solution for iOS?

Canning it and never look back ?

or use focus[1] instead of safari, it's what's recommended on the "block ads" website[2].

[1]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/focus-by-firefox-content-blo... [2]: https://blockads.fivefilters.org/

For your home wifi network, look at Pi-Hole[0], a DNS based ad blocker

[0]: https://pi-hole.net

I'd rather use OpenDNS to block the malware domains than use DNS based ad blocker

I use Refine: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/refine-customizable-ad-block...

i use adblock[0], which while generically named, works phenomenally well. it's a pay app, which is a turnoff for some people, but well worth two dollars to me and is under active development. it uses a local vpn with host based filtering to adblock domains on all apps. the same developer also has a safari plugin adblocker, ADmosphere[1], which is free. alternately, or concurrently, if you prefer safari plugin adblockers, mozilla has one called focus[2], which they've recently expanded into an ephemeral browser that you can easily clear all local data on to avoid tracking. it's handy for one-off searches you don't necessarily want added to tracking network profiles of yourself.

[0] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/adblock/id691121579?mt=8

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/admosphere-free-ad-blocker/i...

[2] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-browse...

I don't know if it's the best but Adguard is both free and excellent.

Or because you use Safari.

there is this fork: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari (found via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13112280)

Try native Content Blocking in Safari via Nope or 1Blocker rather than ABP etc.

Could you explain why you use Safari, other than it was pre-installed with your OS>

Safari is actually really good when it comes to battery life. If I use Chrome (or Firefox to a lesser extent), my macbook's battery empties 30% faster. So, when my computer is not plugged in I tend to use Safari.

That said, there's now ublock origin for Safari which is what I use.

As others mentioned on another thread here recently:

* lower power/memory use and greater battery life vs. Chrome or Mozilla

* being written by a hardware company vs. a surveillance company

Yes, lower power/memory usage equals better battery life at the cost of performance, Safari is not nearly as perfomant as Chrome or Firefox, and to be honest if you're developing the browser is not your main energy drain.

Naive to put trust in either companies use of your details

> ...if you're developing the browser is not your main energy drain.

This has not been my experience, but maybe that's just because I use an ancient text editor (Emacs). If my several-year-old computer with 8GB of RAM goes into a paging frenzy, the browser is usually at fault. Emacs may be using a few hundred megabytes at most.

As for privacy concerns, it's your call. Apple sells expensive hardware; Google sells surveillance-based advertising; Mozilla... sells its search box to either Google or Microsoft? I've made my uneasy peace with this choice.

Can't vouch for your ancient machine or text editor, but writing and compiling on a modern machine with intellisense, the editor uses a lot more energy than the browser

https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~weimer/p/weimer-asplos2014.pdf

This paper didn't seem to deal specifically with compilers, editors, browsers, or intellisense. But I'm curious what counts as "modern" -- how often should I replace my personal machine, or what should its specs be, so people like you don't call it "ancient"? (I already know that I should be using LightTable or Atom or IntelliJ to be "modern" in terms of editors.)

> Yes, lower power/memory usage equals better battery life at the cost of performance,

This is almost never actually the case. In reality, better performance tends to mean better battery due to improved usage of resources.

This is kind of a ridiculous statement.

Not a single category other than energy consumption does Safari benchmark near Chrome, Firefox or even Edge http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/best-browser-internet...

Any of you are free to offer actual data proving otherwise

Anecdotical I know but on mac, when using velocityjs to change the css transform value (translate, scale and rotate) of 100+ spans, Safari is faster and the animation is smoother than Chrome. I've tested that on an imac, a macbook pro and a mac pro. Also, they don't mention in the benchmark you've linked if they're benchmarking the windows version or the mac version of Chrome. The windows version is faster in quite a few cases in my experience.

Finally, while Chrome definitely has a better html5 compliance, there's one thing I hate about Chrome. It doesn't keep the state of the previous page when using the back button unlike Firefox, Safari and IE. See this: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=2879

Err, I didn't say anything about any browser. I said that performance and battery life are not at odds, they often go hand in hand.

Efficiency and energy use go hand and hand, performance and energy use often do not.

What?

The browser is 100% my main energy drain when I'm developing. Sublime Text barely takes up any of my power or memory.

Additionally, I don't use a single website where I noticed a performance hit when I switched from Chrome to Safari.

Best support for using multiple windows instead of tabs

Reader button

Scrolling performance

Most Mac-like UI

Privacy focus

Memory use and battery life

Maybe, but only because the people for whom uBlock is too complicated haven't heard of uBlock.

Although for those people I usually recommend Adguard, not Adblock plus.