Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="redsworn" data-source="post: 892752" data-attributes="member: 68166">2. I meant this symbol.[ATTACH=full]243823[/ATTACH]It&#039;s just the same as regular cosmetic filter. There&#039;s no difference in syntax or anything. The only difference is it applies globally since it doesn&#039;t contain any hostname. Let&#039;s say you have [ICODE]example.com##.banner-ad[/ICODE], its generic rule would be [ICODE]##.banner-ad[/ICODE].3. I&#039;m bad at regex, like super bad. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite126" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL&nbsp; &nbsp; :ROFLMAO:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" />&nbsp; So here I just copied some from easylist.[CODE]/\.accountant\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest/\.bid\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest/\.click\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest/\.club\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest/\.com\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest/\.cricket\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest[/CODE]4. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to insinuate. Not your fault, because I realize how messy my reply was after I re-read it again. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite128" alt=":sleep:" title="Sleep&nbsp; &nbsp; :sleep:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":sleep:" />To put it simply, big static filters could slow down your browser because of the reason I mentioned before, especially on low-end devices. Dynamic filters on the other hand shouldn&#039;t really affect the performance due to the simplicity of its syntax. You can do some tests to measure their impact on the performance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="redsworn, post: 892752, member: 68166"] 2. I meant this symbol. [ATTACH type="full"]243823[/ATTACH] It's just the same as regular cosmetic filter. There's no difference in syntax or anything. The only difference is it applies globally since it doesn't contain any hostname. Let's say you have [ICODE]example.com##.banner-ad[/ICODE], its generic rule would be [ICODE]##.banner-ad[/ICODE]. 3. I'm bad at regex, like super bad. :ROFLMAO: So here I just copied some from easylist. [CODE]/\.accountant\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest /\.bid\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest /\.click\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest /\.club\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest /\.com\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest /\.cricket\/[0-9]{2,9}\/$/$script,stylesheet,third-party,xmlhttprequest[/CODE] 4. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to insinuate. Not your fault, because I realize how messy my reply was after I re-read it again. :sleep: To put it simply, big static filters could slow down your browser because of the reason I mentioned before, especially on low-end devices. Dynamic filters on the other hand shouldn't really affect the performance due to the simplicity of its syntax. You can do some tests to measure their impact on the performance. [/QUOTE]

Verification