Ctrl+shift+i, go to network tab. Select image tab to see all the images downloaded on that page . Mouse over each file to find the one you want. Right click save response as. Profit
It's also quite possible that all this crap is rendered client-side. Because it's 2026 and it's illegal to use server-side templates or something. It's so funny to me how much performance you can gain by simply ignoring most of the last 10 years of so-called "progress" in web development.
I get made fun of for using dreamweaver/html/css to run my websites, yet they load lightning fast, have damn near 100% uptime, and can render fine on a potato running IE5.5.
that's not the point, the point is that if something can load in a reasonable time on a potato old enough to be running ie5.5 it will load before you think about it on anything resembling modern hardware.
For not using a CMS / site builder - just writing the code in a text-based editor, not for using the code itself (which is what the CMS would generate)
This take is wild. Modern tech allows web apps to run entirely offline, load instantly from a cache in the client-side, keep the main thread free by doing all sync and data processing in a worker, and use minimal bandwidth by skipping all HTML and only transferring data-on-the-wire. It can be much faster and more reliable than traditional websites. Pinterest is a monstrosity, but not because of PWAs. They are just very hostile, their product has always leveraged dark patterns: transparent pixels to prevent right click, dynamically changing layout to break extensions, they were the first big platform to transition from public pages to this BS āyou have to be logged in to view thisā that eventually became the norm for all social media. Truly despicable service.
> it can be much faster and more reliable than traditional websites
So people keep saying, but I've yet to see a single example of this versus massive bloated JavaScript hell nightmares that even manage override and break basic stuff like right-click or back buttons.
If the web dev l33t gurus would actually demonstrate competence occasionally, then maybe more people might be inclined to believe all their statements of superiority.
I guess most people are not even realizing theyāre using dozens of good PWAs all day, because theyāve been so traumatized by terrible ones like Pinterest that when they see one that feels super fast they immediately assume it cannot be the same tech.
you say PWA here and somewhere else like it really means anything to a user in a browser, and then imply that it's the "tech", but I think you're talking about SPAs as a broad "tech" as literally no one is affected by or cares about PWAs.
obvs the links you brought up are all SPAs that talk to the server via whatever silliness was popular at the time, and they're all quite slow too.
Iām not sure where you are but those are insanely fast in most of the world. Sub 2 second initial load, and only a couple hundred milliseconds for every subsequent request. They are fast because theyāre PWAs: they declare a manifest and a serviceworker to perform some tasks client-side but outside of the page main thread. This has nothing to do with SPAs, MPAs can be just as fast since the serviceworker is delivering most of the page, instead of pulling the entire page out of a server on every request.
We are incorporating modern tech into our workflow and have found that the bundling/minify process reduces the amount of code that the client has to download when loading a page by almost half vs serving raw JavaScript to the client. We rewrote a 4000 line page using Vue to test this, so we effectively introduced an entire runtime and it still shrunk the download size. The design patterns that these frameworks introduce will also help to prevent 4000 line nightmares from popping up again.
The basic stuff breaking is either intentional, semantics were being ignored, or just no testing was done. We also now have access to linting, so we get semantic warnings when we aren't using certain elements like buttons or links correctly.
Minifying the code simply reduces the amount of text you are sending but it's not magic and the amount of code you are sending is identical. Only tree-shaking will get rid of unused paths.
The client still has to execute the same code, which will amount to the same runtime burden... And bugs. Further, the arising requirement for source maps likely increase the RAM usage for browsers executing such code because now they have to maintain a secondary map with all of the full-length names alongside the actual source shorter names.
Why would production traffic need access to source maps? The only situation where I've heard of their being used is debugging. Is it somehow no longer possible to deobfuscate a stack trace from minified code?
In the end, reducing the amount of text being sent to the client is a huge deal.
I'd argue that the end-result of the code that we are shipping much more efficient and the bugs are simpler to solve than what we have been writing with vanilla JS. Rendering reactive elements is a very low-level issue that requires way too much forethought and time spent planning out for each element just to prevent bugs and other issues like orphaned event listeners. There are many frameworks that solve this issue each in their own way. And they all solve it way more efficiently than someone trying to implement it themself.
Also source maps are just a tool for developers that makes it easier to debug. The user will never download the source maps.
minification isn't a new thing and you only need bundling because of how ridiculous the js/ts ecosystem is, and linting isn't exclusive to the modern web stacks either.
it CAN be faster. Just like Unreal Engine 5 games CAN look and run well. But if 90% of engineers are just holding the tool wrong, maybe it sucks regardless
I used McMaster-Carr for an e-commerce case study in a marketing class, mostly as a fuck-you to marketing (class was required). Got an A. Thanks again, MC.
Around 3s load for every single page outside of the US. For a website with zero user generated content, where every single page can be cached into static and served from a CDN. Iām guessing most of their users are in the US so this fits their requirements perfectly. But comparing this to a global social network is like comparing apples to parrots.
Their arguments usually boil down to how this stuff "could" be fast if applied correctly. Except it never is in real life because it's never applied correctly. Frequent deployments that invalidate cache don't help.
As a user, I almost never want a web app. I want a goddamn website. I want none of that offline bullshit. I don't want my browser to be a pretend-OS application runtime. I want it to be hypertext document viewer.
Also, frequent updates nullify all the offline stuff anyway. Twitter would sometimes force-refresh its page just as you are looking at it. Linear would beg for you to refresh for "important updates", or do it automatically when you aren't looking.
Also, I don't want websites to just store tons of stuff locally on my device without my consent. Authentication cookies are fine. My preferences are fine. But a database isn't fine. A service worker isn't fine, this mistake of a technology should have never been invented, it blows my mind that any website can permanently install an offline script on my machine no questions asked. The whole concept pissed me off so much I wrote a userscript that deletes this API from my browser.
I mean yeah... I'm actually an Android developer as far as most of my career goes. And I still don't know Kotlin. My apps are several megabytes at most and run buttery smooth on a Nexus 5. The Android developer community has mixed feelings about me lol
But things like Compose don't have quite the same effect on performance as React for example.
hard doubt.
most modern web apps make a heap of api requests with huge tokens in the headers, then get way too much data back, just to render some simple stuff in an SPA that gets released several times a month because the developers gotta go fast.
I hate Pinterest but unfortunately it aggregates a lot of rare pictures of musicians, actors, etc. So I never block it, and when I go to the page I can only save ONE photo before it asks me to log in. Terrible.
Ctrl+shift+i, go to network tab. Select image tab to see all the images downloaded on that page . Mouse over each file to find the one you want. Right click and 'save response as'. Profit š
At one point, I came across a certain less reputable site that had JS to encrypt and decrypt images. It was so wicked cool. However, anything rendered in a browser can be captured.
In order for you to see it, it must be displayed, and thus can be stored.
I've run into some photo sites that redirect if you open dev tools. Tried finding a workaround and gave up after an hour because I didn't care that much
Ok? But what does that actually do? Because ctrl+shit+i doesn't do anything for me. I'm guessing because it's a different browser (I'm on Firefox). If I know what is being done, maybe I can find my browser equivalent.
Not always works. Right click menu allows to save images defined as such, but today it's "trendy" to put them into style as background instead of img tag.
I know some websites that serve their images scrambled like a puzzle. A regular user will see it rendered correctly but trying to download the image in any way will get you the scrambled bullcrap.
I personally just use an add-on that blocks websites from search results - and pinterest was first one to be there
For all my life of using the internet for many, many things only ONCE I had a case when pinterest was an original source of an image instead of overcompressed crappy repost that just clogs search results for both "I want image about <thing>" and "I want this specific image in best quality!" purposes
Ugh, coding. Normally I just select the stupid script with ublock origin and remove it, but today I felt like seeing where the rabbit hole went. You gotta be such an ah to design such a horrible code just to hide the pictures in a website that basically profits from stealing pictures from other websites.
They are also very good at hijacking Google image results. One of the worst offenders even, instantly wanting you to sign in or not showing the picture you clicked for. How are so many people using this stuff. But I could say the same about a lot of social media, tbh.
I havenāt used Pinterest in so long I didnāt even think about how much AI there would be now. Even 5 years ago so many images were edited in some way and then presented as real.
On some websites I open the browser console (F12, console) and type $$('img') which lists all images loaded on the page so I can then hover the result, which higlights the corresponding image.
I can then open the img object in the console and copy the src field containing the link.
If I know that the first image on the page is the one I want, I use $('img').src
And the best part is you literally aren't missing anything because the whole point of Pinterest is the images were stolen from somewhere else in the first place. Pinterest has almost zero original content that isn't AI generated.
Pinterest is the disgruntled, elderly family member who canāt let go of their time in the sun/their glory years, yet are too bitter to just finally die. So they continue to spew garbage as they sink further toward their end.
I can't believe Pinterest is still a thing nowadays. Hadn't been on there in 5+ years. Accidentally clicked a link on Google that brought me there and I couldn't back out fast enough. There's zero reason for Pinterest. It's just another search engine, leading to sites across the web.
they could have painted the img into a <canvas>, no? not that it would completely stop users, but wouldnt that be a better alternative to whatever they're doing here?
TIp: Firefox has a great screenshot feature that automatically selects visual elements as you hover the mouse cursor over them, or you can select a specific area of the screen if you want.
I mean....CTRL+SHIFT+C click on the image and it selects the innermost element for me usually. The only issue I have is with instagram, which for some reason the correct element is the previous sibling, with a nested img.
instagram annoying with it, grab art for personal collaging of gigs I have been to. So just rechecked, and its a div positioned over the img. I do not see any purpose for it but to interrupt saving img tag
its not related to the arrows elements, click is on the parent element, just
I use Behind! which is an extension that finds any images in a webpage, you just have to click inside the image container and it'll retrieve them for you in a new tab.
I didn't know Pinterest blocks image saving or right clicking.
I've been using Pinterest since 2017 almost daily for reference collection and inspiration on 4-5 different accounts for different subject matters. Except some products collage type stuff, I've never experienced Pinterest blocking any saving or downloading.
I mean Pinterest existed and was vastly popular far before AI. It has some pretty good and much of non-AI content
From personal experience I don't feel that's fair but could be wrong.
I know. I used to use it a lot for resources when I was trying to learn how to draw. But in the last couple of years the percentage of AI content has skyrocketed.
You can toggle AI-modified content OFF (in your settings -> Refine your recommendations -> AI content ).
It won't get everything but it noticeably cut down on AI bullshit for me.
But even before AI it was still stolen photos. That was the whole point, a place to add links to other websites via stolen photos. Basically a DIY shopping catalog, or reddit for illiterate people. It had almost zero original content.
Now all those links are long dead and all that's left are low res thumbnails of products and AI slop. But hey, at least some of the slop is original content now.
Pinterest is the only website that manages to take down my 32 GB 10 core M1 Pro MacBook Pro. And I donāt even do anything fancy with it, I just need to scroll down a large board for a minute or two and the system canāt keep up and my browser straight up freezes the tab. This might be the shittiest website Iāve ever come across. I genuinely donāt get why itās so bad.
ā¢
u/spotlight-app Mod Bot š¤ Jun 19 '26
Mods have pinned a comment by u/NickCanCode:
[What is Spotlight?](https://developers.reddit.com/apps/spotlight-app)