No need for a framework or anything of the sort as far as I see it. Establish your scale in some manner which can be converted to a distance relative to the top of the page and position the elements absolutely to their proportional position. You can use this same scale against the scrollY attribute to know where you are relative to the top (in this case for rendering the depth).
This is anecdotal but the same exact thing (albeit with an Apple Watch vs. Android) happened to me a few days ago- I had forgotten to turn on the watch's water mode before going in the water. After about like 5 minutes in the pool it started calling 911 for a medical emergency. My watch ended up calling 911 about 3 times (it probably tried to call them about 5 more times but I ended up taking it off in time to prevent those calls- since it wasn't responding to my inputs at all). I also got a call from the Sheriff's office a little bit later and had to sheepishly explain that my watch was spam calling 911.
Still unsure what happened with it exactly, but whatever was triggering it to do this seemed to not simply be due to water on the screen since it tried to call 911 again even when I put the watch back on hours later after it had dried. I have since power cycled it a few times and let it run out of battery and it hasn't tried getting me arrested for spoof calling 911 again, so that's promising.
This isn't a ding against the product or idea and is likely something you're looking to improve in the long term, but the graphics on the marketing site just feel like visual sugar and don't convey any information. This may be just me but I frequently just go through a marketing site's graphics as a way to grasp high level details of the company and product, but the graphics on your marketing site feel like random geometrical placeholder images with different layouts, as opposed to anything that actually complements the information written in text next to them. Again, this is a minor gripe, and something that probably was already going to be addressed long term. The product sounds interesting and I look forward to taking a deeper dive into the open source side of it later!
Besides the "what about this other accident with 500 victims!!!", "these people are dumb", and the "look how they ignored safety!" comments, I can't help but be amazed at how events like this make people crawl out of the woodworks spouting complete falsities as if they're facts. I've seen so many boneheaded comments over the last few days that I don't even know how to list all of them out, from people saying that Titanic is "relatively shallow" in the ocean, to people speculating that the passengers may have drowned as opposed to being /literally/ instantly vaporized. I think, per usual, this whole event has gone to show just how quickly (some) people assume an authoritative position in areas they have absolutely no expertise or knowledge about. Rant over.
The size is irrelevant, the energy released is significant either way and definitely beyond the thresholds of hydrophones. During the USCG press conference today it was stated that the implosion made a significant soundwave as a result of the implosion, and I think in the coming weeks we'll hear reports of findings in regards to hydrophones which picked up the noise.
Obviously unfortunate for the passengers, but definitely the preferable outcome instead of being stuck on the bottom or the surface until air ran out. The implosion would have essentially vaporized them within milliseconds, there was no chance they even had started to process their own demise, which, in a way, is somewhat positive, in context of the narratives that were pushed for a while.
- No noises were heard during rescue operation (the implosion likely happened around the time the communication was lost, as opposed to in the days following)
- The "banging" noises discussed earlier were unrelated to the submersible.
I mean I think the bigger take away is to not cut corners when operating with such a small margin of error as DSVs. Safe deep-sea exploration is possible, and has been for a long time, in manners such as the DSV Alvin, DSV Limiting Factor, etc., etc. The manner in which the Titan was made and tested indicated a severe lack of safety oversight from OceanGate. As unfortunate as this is, there's the saying that rules are written in blood, and this is yet another case. I doubt there will be many such cavalier attempts at deep sea exploration and tourism in the future as a result, for the better.
The ascent and descent to Titanic is about 2 hours one-way. The exact time they say they lost contact was after around 1 hour and 45 minutes. It was likely at or close to at the depth of Titanic.
By "the “conspiracy theorists” keep turning out to be right" do you mean like how Trump won the election in 2020, Biden is an actor, Obama has been hung for treason, people around the globe are dropping dead from the vaccine, etc.? These are the people I'm talking about when I speak about conspiracy theorists, people reasonably sitting on the fence when there is conflicting information are not. You speak in absolutes about how _everybody_ who presented the possibility of a lab leak was banned and labeled a xenophobe, and while I cannot speak onto your anecdotal experiences, I never saw this in any platform I participated on at the time, in fact (as I shared in another comment on this thread), I leaned towards the likelihood of a lab leak after getting recommended a very popular youtube video on the topic from a very popular channel. As far as I know, that video is still available, although it has obviously been a long time since I last watched it.
Part of how cults are started is creation of a us versus them mentality, often where it doesn't exist. I believe this is why so many conspiracy theorists with more extreme beliefs might misconstrue their experiences in discussion around the topic, when in reality those discussing the very legitimate possibility of a lab leak never got much flak (anecdotally, as I said).
I remember learning a lot of the reasoning behind why I thought it was most likely a lab leak from a video I got as a top recommendation on youtube from a rather large channel that had near or over a million views at the time, so anecdotally I think perhaps a lot of the people who got banned for their discussion on the topic were either grouped up with people positing more extreme possibilities, or just an example of over reach. Either way, I personally don't remember people presenting the possibility of a lab leak being shredded (at least on youtube, I can't speak for the other platforms as I use them very infrequently).
I have a few family members very deep in the weeds (QAnon, Cabal, One World Order type of crap) and they love to play this narrative. In reality it seemed like it was rather obvious to anybody who looked at the facts that this pandemic had dubious origins. Just a few of these were the close proximity, same family of viruses being researched, mysterious personnel changes around the time of the initial spread, etc., yet those same family members have turned any reluctance on my part to flat out declare this pandemic as a manufactured Chinese bioweapon into flat out denial of any chance of it being anything more than a big coincidence.
I guess it boils down to conspiracy theorists believing that you're either all in, or not in at all, and there exists no middle ground to wait for more facts before coming to a conclusion one way or the other.
I also feel like noting that I didn't engage in discussion on the topic with many other people outside of aforementioned family members on the topic, so who knows, maybe I would've been ridiculed for sitting on the fence, but anecdotally I definitely remember people seeing either source as a possibility (minus the Cabal manufactured pandemic to sterilize the human race one, of course).
The number is clearly an exaggeration, and it's a bit embarrassing that I have to point that out. One of the few benefits of crypto is that it's difficult to trace (although certainly not impossible except for unique cases like XMR), so obviously nobody has the data to attest what percentage of people definitively have fallen victim to scams. However, what is known for certain is that people lost $14 billion to crypto scams last year (globally), with the average amount lost per person likely much higher than many other types of scams, considering the entire US lost $10 billion to all other types of scams last year, and the number of people in the crypto space is a small fraction of the US population. Keep in mind that the two numbers are globally vs the US alone, but I would presume the majority of the $14 billion lost were from US investors. I found more targeted studies that have numbers like 33% of people in crypto have fallen victim to scams, but I can't find the original study so I've omitted referencing it directly.
While I actually found your comment pretty funny, and do certainly find it tiring how people pretend as if some cookie cutter SaaS start up will change the world (personally made me think of the very first episode of Silicon Valley on HBO), I honestly don't think there's a parallel between people being overzealous and/or naive in thinking some basic productivity app will change the world and the subset of the cryptocurrency fans who honestly present blockchain as a solution to just about every problem that exists around the world.
See above for the typical coiner response to anybody who brings up counterpoints. I mention that people might not like how crypto is posited as a miracle-drug to all world issues- low effort. You add a comment which doesn't address my comment at all and just comes across like a wannabe reddit zinger- not low effort? The irony is palpable. Just go back to /r/bitcoin or whichever echo chamber you prefer.
Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, the only people who hold anti-crypto views are just jealous and spiteful people. There totally doesn't exist any group of people who are just sick and tired of people propping up an almost totally useless technology as the savior of all financial, political, and social woes. /s
Please, point out one single application of blockchain that is useful and more efficient, beneficially transparent, and faster than a different implementation that doesn't utilize blockchain. Being somebody who is a big fan of blockchain yourself, surely this should be a very straightforward thing to point out.
Great point- these are reasons why we have the regulation we have today in our current banking system, and why any financial system that doesn't have any ability to be regulated (i.e. crypto) is massively problematic and ends up with 99% of people being fleeced out of their assets (as we've seen in the crypto space).
Couldn't agree more- the technology just doesn't exist to deliver something of this sort in a way that doesn't come across as dystopian, which is unfortunate. They'll definitely iterate to bring it to a more seamless solution that seems less like going into a different world and ignoring reality.
A little bit dystopian looking, but I think the potential is massive here. Just imagining the potential for the 3d photos/videos to basically put you back into places and times and truly experience either places or people who no longer exist feels absolutely monumental alone, ignoring all the other potential here.
On the dystopian front, I believe that the problem is that any AR/VR headset is going to require a similar form factor to include all computational pieces and sensors. I truly believe they would've made it look a lot more like regular glasses if it was feasible. I think over time the Vision Pro will start to approach something of the sort when that technology becomes available.
And yet you don't directly provide any evidence to the contrary, highlighting that the person who is providing nothing is actually you and your comment of unsupported contradictions.
Does your utility company take crypto? Mine certainly doesn't. Therefore, in order for me to use crypto as a currency, I need to be able to convert it to fiat. Point out where exactly this is incorrect, or in what way crypto can address it without making some dreamy assumption that the world shifts to using crypto as the global currency (which will simply never happen). Did I say nobody accepted crypto? Nope, never said that.
Every time a crypto article is posted there are one of two people in the comments; those acknowledging yet another failure in a continuous display of cryptocurrency's blatant inability to be a valid currency, and those who mindlessly still think there's any hope for cryptocurrency to be a global currency.
Those who say that CEXs aren't part of the core values of cryptocurrency are right, except also completely ignorant to the fact that without CEXs, crypto's usability as a currency is practically 0.
CEXs have failed, hardware wallets have failed, soft wallets have failed, seed phrases are fundamentally problematic, etc.
Cryptocurrency won't ever be functional on a large-scale as a global currency, and that much is evident. It's not even a matter of opinion; the core idea of decentralization which "makes crypto great" makes it unusable as a currency for the vast majority of people- who would need to rely on some centralized authority in order for crypto to operate within the real world.
Anybody left in the space must just be hanging onto greater fool theory, that or has drank the kool-aid.
Yes, except of course the fact that Bitcoin/Eth without the ability to convert it to fiat is functionally worthless, except for the people with their heads in the clouds who think that at some point the entire global economy will move to Bitcoin (which can't even handle a fraction of the transactional throughput of MC or Visa). Crypto, while nice in theory, has proven to not work in reality, time and time again. Centralization is necessary for a lot of niceties in order to make crypto a functional currency, and yet centralization is also counter to all of the values of crypto. Anybody still hanging onto crypto is probably latching onto greater-fool theory and hoping they aren't the greatest fool, although at this point, they likely are the end of the line.
Couldn't agree with this more. It's always nice to think that some super clean UI beats making quick CSS adjustments alongside HMR or a quick build time but in my experience it probably never does. If I wanted to test different font weights of some text I wouldn't go into the CSS in my browser and adjust it, I'd just change the value in my CSS (helped more-so by CSS frameworks such as Tailwind), and see how the output changed. The upside being that if I like how it looks, I've already made the change to my code. I don't know who this would realistically save any significant amount of time a week for outside of an inexperienced developer who doesn't have a pretty good idea of how slight style differences will impact the final product.
Seeing stuff like this is always a bit bitter-sweet. Ignoring the fact that obviously this is a far way from a "cure" in adults, as this is an early stage study, I always feel like seeing how far and how fast we're progressing on these types of diseases just makes me more anxious about being a bit too early. While I think FOMO is a bit of a poor way to put it, since there has been significant advancement within our time, I can't help but think how awful it'd be to get a disease of this caliber in current year knowing that given an extra 10-20 years, you'd like have a much better prognosis. Maybe I'm just over-thinking it here, but even with a less severe and more common cancer, I think the thing I'd struggle the most with would be the unfortunate timing. Perhaps this is insensitive or moronic, but it's been something I've always thought about when I've read about these advancements in the field of cancer treatments. Would be curious to hear how others feel about it, and whether anybody else has this FOMO feeling (for lack of a better description)?
Yikes, yeah- on second thought it does seem sarcastic.
It's just so difficult to tell with Tesla because it certainly does have a certain portion of the population that would have posted the original comment entirely unironically.
I mean if they hypothetical company X has some tier that is extremely lenient with their limits and would likely end up cheaper than a pay-as-you-go model, I generally prefer going that route. That plus it also gives me some degree of certainty that if something erroneous happens I don't have the potential to end up spending $XXX or more.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment but if you're under the presumption the Apple Developer membership is $100/mo then I wanted to clarify it's actually $100/yr for Apple Developer (it's actually 99 but I'm not going to play semantics).