Conlectus

Semantically neutral yes, but they are not divs -- they're "unknown elements", which have more annoying behavior (similar to pseudoelements from memory)

The existence of first-contentful-paint, as well as the page speed index, would suggest they care to prioritize for these factors as well and not simply defer to after load.

Both of those metrics account for the visual completion of the page relative to its final appearance -- deferred resources would slow that.

How are Web Components an example of the browser thinking of itself as an OS? Do you mean PWAs?

For finite sized memory, the problem can be solved by recording every system state (registers, memory values etc.) and seeing if the same state is ever reached twice. If so, the program will never terminate, and vice versa.

As a data point, I was (until just now) one of those people.

Having all references that are returned from C be treated as Option types would resolve this difficulty, no?

Likewise, your type system can prevent you from using uninitialized values in other languages, without the need for Option (and indeed the unwrap() call you imply you would have used) from being needed.

Though yes, I'm glad to see this is being addressed :).

Excellent news! I read the discussion that has since been linked elsewhere, and got the general impression that there wasn't going to be a change for backwards compatibility reasons. Glad to be proven wrong!

Reference types were indeed what I was referring to.

I've been following Nim for a while now (including back when it was called Nimrod), but the big reason I've never dug much more into it is because it repeats the Billion Dollar Mistake[1] of allowing values (yes, not all values, but important ones) to be nil without explicitly using Option types.

It's disappointing that Nim has not (perhaps cannot, for backwards compatibility) learned the same lesson here that most other modern languages have, and used explicit nilability embedded in the type system.

And to preempt the argument that "you can't, for performance reasons!", you could do the same thing as Rust does and explicitly opt-in to having your code break if something is nil, via a call like `.unwrap()` which the compiler may optimize away.

[1] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Null-References-The-Bill...

I think I'm having flashbacks :P https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

I'd assume the grandfather is talking about Hacker News' pretty noticeable libertarian / free-market leaning.

Edit: as the karma now reflects.

Looks neat! This reminds me heavily of the excellent Building Git by James Coglan[1].

From a cursory glance though, it doesn't seem to support reading packfiles. This was the big thing that prevented me from using a fully custom Git implementation when I wrote my git churn calculator[2]. For larger repositories, it seems that almost all files are stored in packfiles, rather than the conceptually simpler "loose" format.

For me, the most valuable resource was reading the Git / libgit2 source and reference documentation.

[1] https://shop.jcoglan.com/building-git/

[2] https://github.com/samdoiron/butter

An important limitation here is that it needs to be valid Ruby syntax as well, since this was added without/before official Ruby typing support.

From my experience musl libc[1] is a more popular project in this space

[1] https://musl.libc.org/

Heads up: Though amazing, the compiler makes use of the deprecated POSIX setcontext API[1], which means you may have trouble running it on some modern distributions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setcontext

It's unfortunate that what would previously have been a mixin using a CSS preprocessor is now implemented using (often massive) stylesheets with mostly duplicated implementations.

Worth noting that Lyrebird is very rough -- at least last I tried -- and produced extremely robotic sounding (though recognizable) audio.

This method has much clearer audio, but seems to lack generality / TTS capability.

Google search has defined itself by being the way people access the web, and already has heavy antitrust pressure put on it but the EU for related reasons. Extending that would go against their stated world view, and more importantly raise even more regulatory concerns.

This situation differs from eg. YouTube because they do not themselves host the content, and are not subject to copyright laws related to it.

Also: Google is made of human beings who have already protested against, for example, censoring Google within China.

As I understand, tap-to-zoom adds a minimum latency to every click on a page since the browser needs to wait to see if its a double tap. This makes some buttons etc. feel laggy.

That does not shift focus reliably.

The biggest problem I've found with using my iPad pro as a full time device is that the iPad does not have a real concept of keyboard focus. This is a big deal in split-screen apps, where hard as I try I can't get my terminal emulator to accept keyboard input -- I just keep typing in Safari.

Hopefully this is something that Apple addresses now that they consider iPad OS to be a real OS and not a scaled-up iOS.

Interesting to see this come up. About 2 years ago I found a similar exploit in blackboard (XSS that could lead to session hijacking) and found that there was absolutely no way to report the vulnerability except through their help-and-support chat.

After reporting it, they thanked me and said they would be in touch when they addressed it. I never heard from them again, and it seems they didn't take security much more seriously.

This is, give or take, what web assembly is supposed to do, no?

reminds me a lot of http://youarelistening.to/

They likely have a white list of browsers, not a black list, so new browsers may simply not be supported until they update the list.

Edit: And the new Edge version likely identifies itself differently.

Almost certainly unintentional. They're likely confused by a new User-Agent string or some feature detection gone wrong.

YouTube is indeed a SPA.

YouTube has gotten flak for being biased in their "Trending" promotions recently, so maybe they've taken more of a hands-off approach.

This is called the "Long tailpipe argument", if you want to look into it further.

My understanding is that EVs are still usually a net win because

1. Power plants can benefit from economies of scale that individual cars cannot, making a gas power plant powering EVs better than individual cars running on gas.

2. As others have said, it is easier to upgrade power plants than all cars on the road.

This reminds me a lot of txti.es. The difference seems to be that this allows anyone to edit a post (in the public domain).