On first glance it seems very legit and personally I would be very hesistant judging something GPT slop based on some writing style.
>> Marko delivers 12.6 kB raw (6.8 kB compressed). Next.js ships 497.8 kB raw (154.5 kB compressed). That’s a 39x difference in raw size that translates to real seconds on cellular networks.
Sorry, it isn't 2006, cellular networks aren't spending "seconds" in the difference between 13kB and 500kB.
Payload size can matter, but it's complete nonsense that 500kB would translate to "real seconds".
Just spotted this section:
>> The real-world cost: A 113 kB difference at 3G speeds (750 kbps) means 1.2 seconds for download plus 500ms to 1s for parse/execution on mobile CPUs. Total: 1.5 to 2 seconds slower between frameworks.
3G is literally being decommissioned, and 3G isn't 750kbps, it's significantly faster than that.
> On first glance it seems very legit
Yes, that's exactly the danger of AI slop. It's very plausible, very slick and very easy to digest. It also frequently contains unchecked errors without any strong signals that would traditionally go along with that.
The article cites also the use case, real estate agents. They also struggle at times with bad connection issues it seems. And with a bad connection average websites do take seconds to load for me.
Websites taking seconds to load in bad mobile reception is usually down to latency and handshaking, not raw bandwidth.
Show me a real world example of a single payload 500kB taking seconds longer than 13kB. It's not realistic.
Not wanting to believe something is very different from the thing being untrue. The differences between 13kB and 500kB are quite real and quite measurable.
That's why I stopped reading at your first quote, it didn't fit with the summary and there's no point reading a bunch of numbers and wondering which are made up.
