680 karma · joined June 3, 2014
If you’re going to use it I’d probably rebind it in the keyboard shortcuts settings.
1. blocking first-paint 2. 'flashes' of anything 3. Not showing the font at all.
A quick mockup: https://codepen.io/pjwdev/pen/ByoLJoR
(This is an intentionally bad fallback. If it were Georgia the effect would be a whole lot more subtle.)
The main changes were integration of Apple's AI stuff and improved VoiceOver support. Nothing earth-shattering but it's still active.
From 30 years of age, disc degeneration is more likely than not. You don’t need a scan to tell you you’re in the early stages of it.
1. Stop labelling it with a confession.
2. Stop forcing the user to reset their password when they demonstrably don't have their password manager ready to store it. [Whether that be 1Password, or just autofill in google chrome]
As the only auth method, it isn’t great. As an option? I wish it were universal. Anything other than those or passkeys creates more issues in your mum's case. And passkeys are new.
(That said – If we’re distinguishing between magic links and email OTPs, there’s really no good reason not to have both in the same email, and the latter is better for the public library use case.)
Actual sources of information give you 1.39% [1]
[1]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/tm.tax.mrch.wm.ar.zs
> It’s protected with the new key which is controlled solely by the user’s trusted devices
I think main thing they’re avoiding is an explicit guarantee that the key cannot be retrieved from your phone by a third party.
@tonaljs/key gives you some specifically functional info, but the vast bulk of it as useful for non-functional analysis – though it does assume 12-tone equal temperament.
I tried and it did.
‘Downtown vegan dog-friendly’ works just as well, of course.
Apple restricts third parties almost entirely through technical measures.
Jailbreaking to bypass the technical measures is legal.
But, before showing your site, Google 'features' chatGPT's hallucination from one of your earlier HN comments[0].
https://i.imgur.com/yxXo3GI.png
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38321168#:~:text=To%20c....
B & C look the same from outside, of course. You’re not paying retail printing prices, but they might eke out a couple pennies of profit.
For customer sales, the royalty is 60% minus the print fee. The minimum retail price is 5/3 the author price, and still gives the author nothing.
They both then show a ‘discard/keep editing’ prompt, but only fantastical has the extra option of a draft.
But in addition to that — fantastical’s popup isn’t even modal. You can push the sheet down to see and interact with the main calendar.
Unfortunately, fantastical doesn’t show the ‘drag handle’ that Mail and other apps use to show this functionality, so it’s not particularly discoverable.
They’re red inside
Cantor is doing a proof by contradiction. He’s assuming that the complete enumeration exists precisely because it is wrong.
If you object to making that assumption, you’re just agreeing with Cantor’s conclusion before he’s made the argument.
It’s a thread of multiple tweets, but it seems like logged-out users now only see the one tweet that was linked to. So that’s yet another reason to find somewhere else to publish your 1256 word essay.
Anyway, the whole thing is:
This year the government will give the UK’s banks £45 billion they have done nothing to earn. That’s because of QE and interest rate rises. At the same time they say they can’t afford decent pay rises for nurses, doctors, teachers and others. This makes no sense.
It’s little understood that bailing out the UK’s banks and paying for the Covid crisis was not a cost paid for with tax. Politicians say it was, but they usually talk a lot of nonsense and they most certainly are when they make this claim.
The way in which these two crises was paid for was with money creation. Quite literally, the Bank of England created new money out of thin air on the government’s behalf - as every bank is capable of doing - and the government spent this into the economy.
That was the right thing to do. On both occasions the economy needed saving. Tax revenues could never have covered the costs. Money creation could do so. And it did so without ever creating inflationary pressure because at no time was the economy overheated as a result.
But, new money creation does have a consequence. This new money had to move from the government sector, where it was created, to the private sector, where it was used. This is done by increasing the balances owed by the Bank of England to the UK’s commercial banks.
All that is required to make this happen is the making of a few entries with a lot of noughts on the end of them in the accounts of the Bank of England. When that process was complete commercial banks had almost £1,000 billion owed to them by the Bank of England.
Let’s be clear that since all money is debt there is nothing unusual about this. Let’s also be clear that some of this was essential to save the banks. It is much harder for them to fail now as a consequence, so they have gained enormously from having this new money.
And just to be clear, what they use this money for is to pay each other without ever having to borrow funds from the Bank of England to do so, and banks paying each other is normal and happens whenever we pay someone who does not bank with the same bank as us.
So, there have been real benefits to the stability of banking as a result of our commercial banks having this vast sum of newly created money placed in deposit accounts with their names on it by the government. But let’s also be clear; the banks did nothing to earn this money.
Apart from the impact on bank stability, none of this mattered too much when interest rates were well under 1%, which they were for more than a decade from 2009 to 2021.
And interest rates do matter when it comes to these accounts because the Bank of England treats them like deposit accounts and pays Bank base rate on them. And that base rate is now 5%, and the Bank of England says such rates are here to stay for some time.
It’s fair to say that the balances on these accounts have now fallen a bit. They are now closer to £900bn. That’s largely because the Bank of England has been selling off some of the government bonds it owns. But £900 billion is still a staggering sum.
What is more, five per cent interest on £900 billion is also a staggering sum. It is £45 billion. That might be the interest cost in these balances in the next year. And remember, the balances were gifted to banks because the government created new money.
Before rates started rising in 2021, this interest was paid at 0.1%. The interest cost for these accounts was less than £1 billion a year. Now it is £45 billion. That is a £44 billion increase. And it has happened because the Bank of England has decided to increase interest rates
So, not only did the government choose to create this money and effectively gift it into bank deposit accounts owned by the UK’s banks, it has also now chosen to gift them £44 billion extra interest a year on these balances. No wonder the banks are making such massive profits.
At the same time, the government has:
- Refused teachers a decent pay rise
- Denied nurses fair pay
- Entered into a dispute with junior doctors
- Provoked the first ever hospital consultant’s strike
- Imposed crushing austerity on the country.
None of this would have been required if £44 billion of total unearned income was not being paid by the government to our commercial banks via the Bank of England.
The government has, then, made a choice. It has chosen to favour banks over working people. It has chosen to reward wealth rather than work. It has chosen to shift income upwards in the economy. It has chosen to increase inequality. And none of this was necessary.
The simple fact is that the Bank of England does not need to pay Bank base rate on all these deposits it has created for the commercial banks that are held with it.
I am not disputing that to ensure the effectiveness of its interest rate policy it needs to pay Bank base rate on some of these balances. I suspect that £200 billion would be enough to do this. The rest could be paid a very much lower rate of interest - even 0.1%.
The saving from doing this would be well over £30 billion a year. That would be more than enough to pay inflation-matching pay rises to all public sector employees and to end austerity. In other words, it could be used to end considerable causes of untold misery.
And what I am suggesting - a two-tier interest rate on these deposits commercial banks have with our central bank - is entirely possible. Japan does it, as does the eurozone. Even we did it in the past. But right now, we choose not to. And that is just a choice. We could do it.
The cost of that choice is economic mayhem, rising bank profits, growing economic stress and the undermining of our vital public services. As choices go, this one is, in that case, beyond terrible. It is catastrophic.
So why is no one talking about this? Firstly, I suspect, because politicians do not understand it. Second, the Bank of England wants this (and the resulting stress) to happen. Third, no politician in this country seems to be willing to stand up to finance.
But most of all, I think nothing is being said because our politicians no longer care about inequality. Nor do they care about public services. And they seem entirely indifferent to the massively unfair treatment of public sector workers.
I also happen to think that true of both Labour and the Tories. Both favour banks over people. But they need not do so. One simple change to the rules on interest paid by the Bank of England to commercial banks could fund every pay claim and a great deal more.
Politicians who refuse to make that change - which would simply bring the UK into line with international norms - are failing the people and public services of this country.
How did we get to the point that they all thought banks more important than health, education and so much else? That’s one of the big questions of our age.
(Yes)
(No) (Cancel)
(Don't Save) ----- (Cancel) (Save)
From the outset, Apple’s HIG recommended using more descriptive words rather than 'OK'.
It only talks about binary choices, but keyboards are just methods for sending a few of those at once.
If you don’t abstract away that kind of stuff, it’s not obvious why you’re doing any generalisation at all.
Tetris.app on my phone cannot read from a game boy cartridge, or speak to a joystick or arcade cabinet CRT screen - is it Tetris complete?
The law defines 'social media platform' in terms of what account holders can do, and 'social media company' in terms of the number of account holders.
It really goes out of its way to distinguish 'users' and 'account holders', and if there are no account holders, it’s not social media. Apparently.
header {
position: sticky;
anchor-name: --header;
top: 0;
}
.controls {
position: sticky;
anchor-scroll: --header;
anchor-name: --controls;
top: anchor(--header bottom);
}
th {
position: sticky;
anchor-scroll: --controls;
top: anchor(--controls bottom);
}
.sticky {
position: sticky;
anchor-scroll: --sticky;
top: anchor(--sticky bottom, 0);
anchor-name: --sticky;
}
As of 2016, dropbox started to intercept calls to open/move/delete files at the kernel level – https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/going-deeper-with-projec... – this allowed them to create proxies for all the files that weren’t synced, and to then download them whenever something tried to open them.
The API they used for that was always intended for Antivirus and similar programs, but it worked. Apple replaced that API with a new one which is a lot more narrowly targeted to Antivirus, and dropbox couldn’t use it.
Dropbox could try and do things without any API, but they’d get themselves kicked off the App Store, they’d need to convince users to turn off 'System Integrity Protection' which would try to keep the OS kernel unmodified, and their implementation would be prone to breaking at any time.
Just managing the files by themselves would essentially be going back to the pre-2016 approach, and the file provider API is better than that.
Almost no macOS screens have ever worked like that. Their interface guidelines have always recommended against it.
> ...all changes that a user enters in a dialog box should appear to take effect immediately whenever possible. — macOS 9 guidelines: http://interface.free.fr/Archives/Apple_HIGuidelines.pdf
Following Apple’s sensibilities will get you both toggle switches and instant changes, though I’m not sure there's a connection within any single interface.
You can rebind it in settings, though at that point you may as well get the bonus features of 3rd party implementations.
For useEffect, exhaustive-hooks & Typescript say nothing, because a non-memoised Effect is a reasonable thing to write. It’s just not a great thing to write accidentally.
Firefox and Samsung Browser are basically the same thing with different colour schemes.
Samsung managed to make the year seem even less tappable: https://imgur.com/a/2q4CiXk
Video: https://imgur.com/a/W196T5f
iOS keeps the input on screen, so you can see the value in context. Android covers it up, and shows the value in a different format in the header.
iOS shows the Month+Year inside the calendar, with a blue arrow beside it to indicate interactivity. It’s not a strong affordance, but it’s something.
On Android, nothing gives any such affordance.
Blindly tapping the month+year in the calendar does nothing.
Blindly tapping the day or month on the header does nothing.
The year looks similar to the day and month, only smaller, and slightly darker grey. But if you tap it, you can scroll through the years.
There’s no way to scroll through months – the only option is to tap through them one at a time.