45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2024
45 points (97.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44122 readers
427 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Oh, how so?
that's cool, yes a browser should stop using resources when you stop using it ( minimize it ), or using that particular tab by making it inactive, chromium based browsers behave like that if I'm not mistaken
check here for some basic examples. eg. it can be used to leak info from one context to another.
there's ofc legit uses for it too, which is why i argue for user intervention.
i may be wrong? but my understanding is they'll currently limit resources, but execution still takes place? that's definitely useful, but my argument is for for an option where CPU resources be limited to 0 in background (without user intervention).