Melk

There's a cutoff built into browsers in the form of a KeepAliveTimeout. A longer load time could have a valid reason, that's not for search engines to decide.

Also your example of a year is obtuse. It's like saying you should drive BMW because you will get killed in a Tesla if you crash at a million mph.

What Google's page speed factor does is differentiate between 1.5 and 2.5 seconds loading time. That has nothing to do with the quality of a page.

What's up with all the angry comments here? The article is about the influence of social media. People here take it as an assault on Trump supporters. Relax.

That's not propaganda. I thought HN would know better.

I expected better from HN. Don't know why really.

No thanks.

I remember this being discussed a decade ago. The irony was that in most cases it was abandoned because migrating cost more than the annual IT budget. And since no politician ever plans a decade ahead, here we are.

Cannes isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Relax. There is still an audience for theatre releases so Cannes will be fine and so will Netflix.

Politicians are our representatives, not corporations. If you want to shame people for not doing the right thing you would need to become a priest.

I'm trying to come up with a situation where loading a 199kb css file would make a difference. Maybe websites that target an audience that is expected to have a slow connection (banks etc.) but this kind of rules them out by not supporting IE.

He didn't say what they did was simple. He said it's a simple explanation for what they did. Google created a great search engine at the right place and time. Since then Google's products have been a hit but mostly a miss by a company with endless money.