oneeyedpigeon

Game consoles are still pretty popular, I don't think people are going to forget what real buttons are for at least another couple of generations.

A button looking like a button isn't an age (of the reader) thing.

Isn't the point that browsers should, ideally, be for web-browsing and nothing more? Even embedding a PDF reader is controversial, but it seems entirely unnecessary that a browser should come with its own emoji-picker—what's wrong with the system's own?

Does any OS get keyboard shortcuts even slightly right? I only really have experience with macOS right now, but it's terrible—just trying to find out which shortcuts are in use is non-trivial.

Is there some kind of Linux standard for this? Something that stores shortcuts in a single plain text file, so they're all visible and easily manageable?

Really good fun. I accidentally completed a word at one point when I was trying to rotate a large section that wouldn't fit anywhere, but other than that, everything worked really smoothly. I thought the "right word, wrong construction" error was, possibly, too generous—I was expecting one of the twists to be that you needed to work that out yourself.

I know this is a throwaway joke, but I was interested anyway...

According to my own local Markdown formatters, the answer would be both "usr" and "bin", with the surrounding slashes removed, but the internal slash remaining. In other words:

usr/bin

(but underlined instead of italic!)

Of course, this problem is nothing new since a filename might easily be named `_my_file_`.

Since this seems to boil down to personal choice, has anyone considered a customisable alternative? Like a frontmatter that declares which character is bold, which is italic. You could easily convert between them according to local preference, much like tabs/spaces.

Except that it's brittle—HTML comments can be stripped. I wonder why they chose this approach vs. frontmatter.

> it feels analogous to someone being mad that someone isn’t being carried via palanquin through the market after the motorized scooter has been invented

If I ordered a taxi and a palanquin arrived, I would at least be asking questions. Although I would still have an issue buying any AI-generated artwork, it would matter a lot less if it were clearly labelled as such from the outset.

I've seen people speculate along the lines of "all Moleskine notebook covers are created by our designers" doesn't necessarily mean "without AI".

Shouldn't it be against some kind of law for marketing shots to not actually be of the product? I know there has to be some leeway, but a hallucinated image is clearly nothing to do with the actual product.

Every time I see "prompt" nowadays, I'm briefly hopeful that I'm going to read something about $PS1. Then, inevitably, AI disappoints me yet again.

Airplanes are good for certain types of journey, but they're vastly inefficient for almost all of them.

SIGINT

> DO NOT JUST PASS THE SECOND BALL BETWEEN YOUR HANDS. This is a common thing, as people are regularly taught it

People are really regularly taught it? Who's doing that teaching?

I suspect a different cause: cartoons. Especially in older animation, juggling was typically presented in the 'circle' style, which is probably where people tended to pick up the misconception. I guess that animation is a lot easier to produce.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAPkX11Bfu8

> so I press Tab

Now you have a bonus problem: how do you insert a Tab in a multi-line text box?

> Infuriatingly, some apps try to be smart — only one line, return submits

Tbf, this is almost certainly what the vast majority of people want, most of the time, from chat apps like Slack. It would be much more frustrating to have to click a button after each thought.

I just tested this on Slack (macOS) and it's not the case. Pressing Enter in a code block submits the message, just as it does for any message.

We've still yet to reach the "any textbox is just an embedded version of your EDITOR" nirvana.

I also sent a LOT of Slack messages prematurely for the same reason. Used to it now, though. The more an interface emphasises the single-line nature of a text input, the better. Multi-line should never submit on enter, single-line always should.

What about all the free-as-in-beer stuff that doesn't depend on ads? Like, er, this site?

I don't think you can add a new paragraph style in Docs. However, 99% of people I've known to use a word processor have never used that feature. Heck, I'd bet the majority of users don't even understand what a 'style' is; people just change the font size directly.

I just cannot fathom the thinking behind presenting URLs but not linking to them. The author clearly knows something about all this (unless it's AI-written, but I don't think it is), so how have they made such a glaringly obvious mistake?

I'm half wondering if they're using a very strange CMS to publish this blog. The fact that they seemingly cannot use the correct double-quote character in their code blocks lends a bit of support to this theory.

> how HTML is only a markup language and not a programming language.

This sentence is a great example of why such a pointless debate continues. Don't disparage HTML as "only" a markup language; it's a markup language. That's no 'better' or 'worse' than a programming language, just different.

"You'll run out of memory eventually" was my point.

I just wish we could get these settings in nice plain text files so we can version control them and edit them easily.

TBF, there isn't a computer on earth that will solve that problem perfectly. At some point, "you shouldn't have so many utilities running" is perfectly acceptable advice.

Yeah, "how much is 10% of your energy bill" would be a much more useful question!

Ironically, that's what probably killed Sourceforge and helped GitHub take off. It remains to be seen whether Codeberg will now repeat the process.

I think we'll see companies increasingly adopting the X approach: charged tiers for 'fewer' ads. With no actual guarantee as to the absolute quantity of ads, just 'fewer, relative to the people who aren't paying as much'. We're basically on a downward slope where not seeing ads is going to get steadily more and more expensive over time.