Huh? I happen to run my own intercepting proxy which rewrites HTML pages, and if I wanted to, I could easily track exactly how many bytes came in and how many bytes went out.
I'm not sure if I described it clearly, with this mode on, all of your traffic was being redirected to a Shaw server before being routed to where it was supposed to go. It was like being connected to a vpn that existed solely to serve me ads. They were blocking ads on websites and replacing them with their own from their servers, I would get popup ads from them that were not being stopped by adblock, every misspelled or dead URL would take me to their landing page full of ads for their services. Not only were they interfering with my traffic, but they were interfering with the monetization of website. As much as I dislike ads, I'd rather the site owners get the ad revenue for my browsing than a company I'm already paying for internet.
> 'm not sure if it still works like this or not, but up here in Canada with Shaw cable for the longest time, it just started out of nowhere one day, I'd always get redirected to a Shaw landing page or have Shaw ads injected into pages when I was browsing.
One of the things I tried really hard to do is make the HTML _really_ clean for things like this.
Is reader mode "really good" or do you think it loads very nicely because of the work we put in to make the HTML nice?
I think it's a mix of both. Honestly I vastly prefer Reader mode's presentation than any other layout, and especially any layout which changes if I interact with it (resize window, move mouse, click mouse button, press key, send window to background, whatever).
I have seen some sites that completely break when using Reader mode. I have seen sites that are very well done in Reader mode complete even with pictures.
