Pic related. It's not misbehaving or anything. No extraneous

JavaScript

>>59880648
Is JS really that bad on the CPU? I figured it would hit RAM harder.

>>59880517
i'd say for the past month, firefox is really shitting the bed.
i honestly thought i had a virus.
had to scan my computer.
go to google.com
loading...loading...loading...loading...loading...(10 seconds later)..loaded

>>59880680
>Is JS really that bad on the CPU?
Yes.

>>59880829
what websites work without JS?
i'd assume that disabling JS is like disabling power steering and headlights for night driving.
whats the point?

>>59880829
Oh okay, I'll try uMatrix or something then. Thanks.

>>59880517
I have a shitty faptop with an intel atom 1.6ghz or whatever running memejaro, and the only way to use the browser is to disable JS. Shit sucks, but for $20 its something.

>>59880872
Thats eggzactly what its like. But its either disabling JS, or waiting half an hour for a page to load.

>>59880517
Installing chrome has fixed this problem on my atom and old dual core systems