jeremyparker

joined 1 year ago

Came here for this. How can they legally use a headline like that. This is why we can’t have nice things.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

You make a compelling point, for sure. There are definitely features that fall into that category (eg page transitions), there are a lot of other things coming out these days that just make life easier.

For example, in chrome (and in the spec) you can now animate between ‘height: [number]’ and ‘height:auto;’ just the other day, I had to write a python function to estimate the highest of a menu based on its length * the line height of the list items, so I could provide an exact height to animate to. It works, but it’s hacky and gross. It would be nice to have access to the solution.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You’re not wrong, but, like with critics of other “abolish such-n-such” statements, you’re missing a core part of it: replacing “such-n-such” with something better. Copyright has a few important purposes, and I don’t think anyone would want to eliminate it without covering those — and the need for creators to survive, and maybe even flourish, is chief among them.

(Same thing with “defund the police” — the intention was to redirect that funding to crime prevention and “alternative policing” (eg send therapists to mental health emergencies instead of cops). That was arguably the biggest PR fail of the century.)

Also, very very minor point, but as a librarian:

content libraries

I think “content collections” would be a better term, to preserve the free-to-share subtext of the word “library” — and “collection” has more of a hoarding context, which fits.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago

That’s true, but, obviously there’s a market share difference between those two. And the fact that it’s ALWAYS ff that lags behind, it’s not like there’s cool things that ff can do that chrome can’t.

And, more importantly, there’s the browser I like (ff) which doesn’t do the thing, and the browsers I don’t like, which do.

FWIW tho, i don’t think OP will actually apply to ALL chromium browsers. I’ve been using Vivaldi when I cheat on Firefox, and none of the anti-adblock changes Google’s been making have impacted Vivaldi, and I assume that pattern will continue.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

As a person who cares about css , it’s still a problem. There are so many cool features that everyone has implemented Firefox. I still use FF as my daily driver, because, as you said, duh, but every time I see new stuff added to the spec, I check MDN, and it’ll be all green except Firefox.

I mean, maybe if the Firefox/Chrome market share ratio inverts, ff will suddenly have a lot more pressure to keep up?

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Bill Gates has made anti-knowledge sharing his lifelong legacy, from crushing OpenGL by bribing game developers not to build in it, to pushing the US gov’t to give away COVID vaccines to poor countries rather than making the data available so they could make their own. His influence in the industry towards proprietary and closed source code is unmatched. Like, we all love the nerd jumping over the computer with the goofy smile but that dude is a piece of shit.

My point was that if we (you!) were able to level the windows/Linux gaming playing field before he died, that would make him mad, and make me happy.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Most people say things like “fuck copyright” because it’s currently set up to benefit employers, large companies, and wealthy people; creators are an obstacle in copyright law. Current copyright law hinders creativity and centralizes wealth. Fuck copyright.

If copyright law was creator-centric, there would be a lot fewer people saying “fuck copyright”.

Personally I’d probably still be against copyright, but only if there was some other way to take care of artists, like a UBI or something.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

If copyright protected the creatives then there would be a lot less antagonism against copyright. Most people are against it because it’s become a lever of control for big companies to use against both the creators and the public.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Please can we destroy Bill Gates’s open source legacy before he dies. I want him to see it die. I want him to be lying on his deathbed, reading an article in Ars Technica about gamers switching to Linux.

And by “please can we” obviously I mean “please can you,” I’m just a lowly full stack dev (aka a lamprey) who wears a Red Hat sweatshirt I got from a friend

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 4 points 5 months ago

My journey was Windows-> Ubuntu -> Mint -> Fedora -> Arch.

(Infuriatingly i still use windows for gaming, but nothing else.)

Did i mention that i use arch?

More importantly:

fucked up all my data with no backup.

One time i messed up a script and accidentally copied 40,000 mp3s to the same filename. 20 years of music collecting, literally going back to Napster, all gone.

Well, not completely gone. I've got everything uploaded to iBroadcast, and I'm pretty sure i can download my library. But I'm not sure i deserve to.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Surely it's because they want to increase the amount they pay the musicians.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you like to upload your own music (like Google music), iBroadcast is the tippy tops. You can still use bandcamp (with or without yt-dlp) for discovery, and then upload what you like to iBroadcast.

 

In CSS, let's talk about srcset or image-set. In that context, you can define which image the browser loads using 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. These refer to pixel density. (In the case of srcset, you can use pixel dimensions too, which sidesteps the issue I'm going to talk about, but it still occurs in image-set, and also is still weird to me in srcset, even if you can side step it.)

So, assuming, say, a 20" monitor with 1080p resolution is 1x, then a 10" screen with 1080p would be, technically, 2x - though, in the real world, it's more like a 6" screen has a 1000x2500 resolution - so, I don't care about math, that's somewhere between 2x and 3x.

Let's imagine a set of images presented like this:

srcset(image_1000x666.webp 1x,
image_1500x1000.webp 2x,
image_3000x2000.webp 3x)

then an iphone 14 max (a 6"-ish screen with a 1000x2500-ish resolution, for a 2-3x pixel density), would load the 3000x2000 image, but my 27", 1440p monitor would load the 1000x666px image.

It seems intuitively backwards - but I've confirmed it - according to MDN, 1x = smaller image, 3x = larger image.

But as I understand it, an iphone 14 acts as if its a 300x800 screen - using the concept of "points" instead of pixels - which, in the context of "1x" image size makes a lot of sense - but the browser isn't reading that, all it seems to care about is how many pixels are in an inch.

I made a little page to demonstrate the issue, tho I acknowledge it's not hugely helpful, since, other than using your actual eyeballs, it's hard to tell which image is loaded in the scrset example, but take a look if you want.

https://germyparker.github.io/image-srcset-example/

view more: next ›