Not trying to defend Chrome here as I dislike their other behaviours, but just from what’s presented in the video, an alternative explanation would be caching. That is, when the reloading is triggered by the switch of user-agent, the cache is reused and thus a shorter load time.
To exclude this effect, the user needs to either
Spoof the user-agent and at the same time clear cache (you can disable cache when reloading through the developer’s tool), or
Clear cache, spoof the user-agent to Chrome. Load page, disable the spoofing, reload.
Yes. I’m not a frontend dev, so not familiar with JS code (let alone an obfuscated fragment), but according to this HN comment, it’s used for a different ad block detection function.
Not trying to defend Chrome here as I dislike their other behaviours, but just from what’s presented in the video, an alternative explanation would be caching. That is, when the reloading is triggered by the switch of user-agent, the cache is reused and thus a shorter load time.
To exclude this effect, the user needs to either
Have you seen this?
https://feddit.it/pictrs/image/0e13c670-4966-4073-89df-f042fe9cc6de.webp
Yes. I’m not a frontend dev, so not familiar with JS code (let alone an obfuscated fragment), but according to this HN comment, it’s used for a different ad block detection function.
That makes a lot of sense. It’s still exclusive to Firefox, though