thundermuffin

il y a 5 moisdiscuss

No, the game's Java version's official title post-Microsoft acquisition of Mojang is Minecraft: Java Edition.

il y a 2 ansdiscuss

Maybe this[1] is the demo you were thinking of? It's what came to mind when reading this chain at least.

[1] https://x.com/wesbos/status/1727730566143803522

thundermuffin

il y a 2 ansdiscuss

I hadn't paid much attention to their $5 deal, so I looked it up out of curiosity.

It's the same food but in smaller portions, which sounds more appealing to me. I wish more places had appropriately sized & priced portions of food instead of "here's 2500 calories and a drink with enough sugar to give you diabetes for $10".

Sometimes I get random cravings for certain fast foods, but I always feel like a sucker when I opt to get less food but pay almost the exact same. The idea of getting the bigger sizes of fast food and reheating leftovers makes my stomach churn a little, though, haha.

thundermuffin

il y a 2 ansdiscuss

The largest difference is everyone who joins would be editing the code like it's a Google Doc instead of having a read-only view of the host's screen; you still end up having to join some kind of voice chat (unless maybe there's an IDE VOIP integration I don't know about in some of these tools!). I haven't used this specifically, so I can't say how well it pulls it off.

However, from the few times I've used VS Live Share, it has been helpful being able to join into someone's coding session and pair with their code directly. Both of us being able to highlight and tweak lines as we're talking did wonders to remove the "add x, no, sorry, not there, the next line/parameter/<item I referenced too vaguely>" or "show me y, now z, wait, go back to y" song and dance routines.

It's not necessarily a game changer for the way every person or team works, but as someone who has an easier time forming a mental model of everything happening when I'm "in" the code, there have been times I think it's saved a lot of back-and-forth compared to a traditional screen share.

thundermuffin

il y a 2 ansdiscuss

Over the years, I've never seen a longer version. I thought CSPAN might have one, but searching for just "fred rogers" wasn't giving me any results pre-1980s. The PBS versions I've found are just the OP clip as well.

In my searches, I have seen one YouTube video that has a few seconds extra at the front[0], but I couldn't tell you if it's actually Senator Pastore screaming "shut up" or if the author sampled some random gavels and screaming, ha.

I'd love to see the full hearing just to get the context of how big of a shift Pastore really went through, but if CSPAN and PBS both don't have it, I feel it doesn't exist at this point.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C5PMPIdG_Y

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

In my unqualified opinion, I would think having an iCloud account tied to the device that the person in possession of said device doesn't own shows "clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary [of them being the rightful/current owner]". Although, I can see how others might argue it proves nothing; in the end, neither side is probably 100% correct in all of the scenarios, and it's all up to interpretation.

All I know for sure is I can say I'm glad I'm not a lawyer!

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but I'm reading it as saying if I can show I bought it at one point in time, then nothing else should matter, and they should unlock it for me. But I believe I must be missing something, because that proof of purchase doesn't necessarily prove it's my laptop after it's been locked by someone else's iCloud account.

For instance, I've given family my old laptops, and they setup their accounts after they take ownership of the device. The way I interpret your comment with regards to my scenario is that Apple should disregard the fact it is locked to their iCloud account and unlock it for me, because I can prove I was the original purchaser - even if they accidentally left it at my home or I steal it from their home.

Is that what you meant, that if I can give Apple a receipt then I am the de facto owner no matter what? Or am I just way off base?

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I appreciate how the author has laid out how the calculation works and the pitfalls of CSS calc. It makes it very approachable for folks.

Has anyone seen a responsive type solution like this that doesn't break the "resize text" accessibility section of WCAG? [0] I would love to be able to use this style of responsiveness, but every time I've ever seen it there's always accessibility concerns or a piece of a blog post dedicated to how you'll still need to tweak and fine tune to meet the needs of less sighted users so it isn't the silver bullet it seems.

For instance on this blog post when zooming in on the example section, my naked eye feels like I never see it actually grow to 200% bigger. I'm on my gaming PC which isn't set up well for much code inspection, but it feels like it's either not growing at all or clamped at a certain size based on the zoom's width. Looking at dev tools, it shows it going from 28px to 18px, so it technically is getting a little smaller, whereas if you have 2rem you see the text grow as you zoom in.

I also could be completely misinterpreting this WCAG section or maybe misunderstanding the font size calculation. It is college football Saturday here in the US, so my brain may not be firing on all cylinders!

[0] https://wcag.com/designers/1-4-4-resize-text

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I started with Vue then moved into React, and I do enjoy how much closer it feels to JS/TS. There's a few of areas where I think React is definitely simpler than it was with Vue 2.x and shudder at how I probably used to have to do things to truly do it "the Vue way" (and there are parts I miss like the built-in, easy slots).

However, I think Vue's dev tooling is way more developer friendly than React's. They probably end up mostly equivalent in how they let you find performance issues or debug states, but I've never been able to understand why React's devtooling just feels half-finished in comparison.

I guess Vue spoiled me a bunch in how approachable its UI was. It may be me misremembering, but I also remember it not hanging or erroring nearly as much as React's devtooling.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Not only was he a mathematician, but Alice is considered partially a commentary on the state of mathematics at the time! [0] It's one of my (irrational) pet peeves that modern audiences often try to explain his books as some kind of Victorian era equivalent to a Cheech and Chong movie about drugs when there's so much more hidden away in the pages. These two books are my favorite books ever, and I'd give an arm and a leg if I could ever get my hands on an original copy, haha.

I highly recommend The Annotated Alice for anyone interested in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, because it makes a couple of fun, curious reads even curiouser! ;)

[0] https://www.npr.org/2010/03/13/124632317/the-mad-hatters-sec...

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

It isn't necessarily a "problem", but I personally am a fan of keeping simple use cases as simple as possible. In my eyes, bringing the syntax to barebones makes it easier to read and more maintainable for these ultra simple use cases (for instance this 3x3 equally sized grid).

    grid-rows: 3;
    grid-columns: 3;

Is it an excruciating pain to need to currently type repeat(3, 1fr)? Nope, not at all, and I'd gladly do it if my team wanted to plain CSS or SASS, but to me that statement doesn't feel nearly as succinct or (dare I say) elegant as other areas of CSS, such as:

    margin: 2rem;
    padding: 1rem 0.5rem;

What I meant by variable sized rows & columns was to keep the rest of the spec as close as possible to what it is now, but layered on top of my suggested simpler syntax from above. That way if I wanted to do something that isn't just n equal-sized columns, I could just write out

    grid-template-columns: 1fr 2fr 1fr;

and it would work as CSS grid currently does. It's the best of both worlds!

I'm also a frontend developer who has spent a pretty significant chunk of time studying CSS. Maybe I gave off the impression that I'm too incompetent to learn the latest features of the language and write them in plain CSS, but that wasn't what I meant. It is way more that I find little pleasure in writing CSS compared to other frontend responsibilities.

Am I happy and grateful that grid, container queries, and the rest of the new features exist? Yes, I am, and grid is one of the tools I reach for the most. In the end, I only had tiny things I wish could have been different about it after using it and realizing "rats, that syntax could have been made a tiny bit simpler for how I use it a lot of the time," or wishes for features that would just make life easier even if the current way of doing things is trivial.

Haha, you know what they say, different strokes for different folks! I didn't feel insulted in the slightest when our lead frontend developer suggested we give Tailwind a trial run. As a group, we were searching for a way to have consistency and a friendlier developer experience[0] throughout our many different projects & internal tools, but without having to bike shed with 10 different frontend developers or saddle someone with the responsibility of adding new CSS helpers as features rolled out (and the inevitable bike shedding that would happen every time). Some of my coworkers were upset about it because they prefer CSS and styling over JS and other frontend bits, but I think even the most fervent "vanilla CSS/SASS or nothing" holdout came around when she had to cover a project while someone was on vacation, and she found a level of consistency and naming that hadn't existed in our codebases.

--

[0] A couple of very old projects in a siloed team had a CSS guru building his own framework in SASS, but it's utility left a lot to be desired. In my opinion, you can't even place all of the blame on him, because his project was extremely standalone (and therefore had lulls when waiting for approvals and this was a way to pass the time and learn) and the company had very little guard rails to prevent this sort of thing. The combination of a small development team splintered between many different projects (no guidelines stating "this is how we are going to do this as a group" existed), everyone being overworked and burned out, and larger projects "winning" eyes of senior developers who held them to higher standards left him in a spot where I think he believed wholeheartedly that he was making a maintainable masterpiece that would end up being used in the rest of the projects when he finally finished it. Sadly, the framework never reached anything resembling a production-ready v1.0, but it did showcase some of his impressive knowledge of CSS.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Just want to preface this with this is all my opinion, and I know I'm not necessarily correct at all.

If I were given free reign, I would have tried to do some different naming for properties like grid-auto-rows/grid-auto-columns/grid-auto-flow. My internal way of thinking about how the first two control the height & width, respectively, don't line up with how I view the word "auto" in other places in CSS.

I also feel like there should have been a true shorthand for just creating an mxn grid. That's one of the biggest reasons I enjoy Tailwind because I can just say "grid grid-cols-3" and get a 3 column grid without me having to explicitly say I want them all even. I would have probably been naïve and made it work closer to the old column-count where giving it a unitless number and it makes it equal in the space; on top of that, I'd then layer the actual spec so you could do variable sized rows/columns.

The other thing I would have done would have been to focus time and effort on finding a way to easily reverse a grid. I know you can use the rtl/ltr hack to do it, and that grid being a 2-axis display method brings a lot of hard questions about "what does reversing a grid mean?". I know names could help here, but it just doesn't make sense in a CMS environment where editors can place as many or as few items in a grid as they want, so I can't just do "a b" -> "b a" based on media query, because there could be columns C through F, too, and I want them all reversed. Thankfully, this is mostly a mobile problem when they're stacked, so I can just switch to flexbox and column reverse, but still would've been nice to have an easier way to do this as the amount of SO posts I remember seeing for this indicated to me that folks did want this feature.

To answer why I don't use grid-template-areas often, I just don't find myself in a lot of situations where naming has made it easier. I guess I could do this kind of thing, but then everyone else is going to ask "where does a/b/c come from?", haha.

    "a a b b"
    "a a b b"
    "c c c c"

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

All of the CSS grid syntax craziness is one of the biggest reasons I was completely OK when our dev team adopted Tailwind. I am one of those devs who couldn't implement all of the CSS spec like @OJFord mentioned... but probably because I always forget what in the world all the options mean/are, haha!

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I'm still rocking my Series 0 Milanese (but on a Series 5 watch), and I feel really lucky to only have lost a few arm hairs to the loop after your comment, haha. I wonder if they've changed something about their design or manufacturing over the years? It'd be interesting to get to see what this band looks like with each new generation to compare.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Nice, that's good to hear! I've been using Contentful which has felt super familiar to editors and devs alike, but does have some pain points, such as the lack of ACF-like repeaters (IMO the relationship fields don't stack up as well for what we normally do for clients), the never-ending modal rabbit holes you go down to edit nested content (page -> section -> component -> image wrapper -> image, all because you can't force alt text on their default media uploads, and that was their suggested method of getting around it!).

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Even all these years later, I cannot wrap my head around WP's direction with Gutenberg. I think having a first party solution for WYSIWYG editing experience is important for WP going forward to keep folks (read: clients, bloggers, etc) interested in it, and I would much prefer to rely on core functionality than battling Elementor, Divi, Beaver Builder, and etc.

However, I have a list of a few items that just haven't sat right with me during the post-Gutenberg WordPress world.

1. The way that it saves the HTML output from React blocks directly to the DB is a cumbersome and unfriendly approach for all. Having a client ask for what would have been a simple tweak pre-Gutenberg and having to resave every page on the site so the deprecation pathway can "update" the block is not friendly to developers or editors. I know you can use PHP (aka "dynamic") blocks, but then you're duplicating the same exact UI between React and PHP and have to take on the technical debt to make sure to keep that in sync. We've moved to relying on ACF Blocks instead of React blocks for most things due to it having a better developer experience and a lot of our clients being used to how ACF works, but obviously this comes at the expense of the fancy inline editing that was the whole "wow!" factor of Gutenberg.

2. The documentation was lacking at launch, and it still feels that way sometimes. It was really aggravating to try to figure out what exactly you could change and remove in core blocks. I remember a coworker and I trying to reverse engineer their columns block since there were a lot of missing features we wanted and realizing that a very, very core block to the Gutenberg experience was utilizing functions marked as experimental without much documentation about what they were or why they were experimental (that we could find). I remember doing our usual upgrade on a new version year after we finally built our own version based off theirs, and the editor completely broke in one of the upgrades (can't remember if it was a major or minor release). Turns out those imports weren't experimental anymore (and no hard feelings on us having to update our imports. We knew we'd need to, it was just the length of time that passed that was "scary", because it doesn't feel great that the core backbone of your site is experimental, haha!).

3. Full site editing being rolled out has felt like Gutenberg's launch all over again. I think #2 is partially responsible for this, but I've watched coworkers have to fight with this a ton for very little benefit, and in some cases those folks end up just saying "hey, you know what instead of trying to rely on their new/weird templates, we'll just add header/footer.php back." This may be less of a problem of Gutenberg itself, but more just a continuation of the lack of decision making and planning that lead to Gutenberg's flaky launch to begin with. Like Gutenberg itself, it's a good idea, but launching it half-baked to just get it out the door makes me hesitate to want to incorporate it until years have passed. My experience has been somewhat limited with their FSE implementation since I've been doing a lot of NextJS work lately, but what little I've dabbled in it wasn't going to have me giving them glowing reviews.

4. It feels like they reinvented the wheel to "do" React SSR in PHP since they save React output directly to the DB. Sometimes I wonder if they wanted to actually have Gutenberg be a standalone project, move to Node, and do real server side rendered React, but were afraid of the very real pushback a move like that would cause and the loss of decades of plugins and backwards compatibility. I know we're toying around with the idea of headless WP + Next since it would hopefully get around the poor pathway for updating React components, but at that point we wonder is WP really what we want to go with or would another CMS be better for our needs.

All that said (didn't mean to rant so much!), I agree with what lenova said a few comments over that Matt has always appeared like a decent person from afar, and I've always respected that he's a web titan (in my eyes, at least), but doesn't come across with the same high and mighty attitude and harshness that a lot of other folks in a position of status like his do.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

But does that mean while those businesses existed that Linux would have had a positive affect on their businesses' bottom line?

edit: Because the way I interpreted your comment was that not supporting Linux is directly responsible for a lot of gaming companies' downfall.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

Ahhh, gotcha!

So if I'm understanding correctly, you'd be fine with DDG's update if it was just the icon being added to the field (making an assumption here that the icon is how you activate the feature like a password manager), but by adding the ad/onboarding/whatever popup they went too far.

That's a fair criticism! At first, I was taking your stance as it was a terrible wrong that they added another privacy feature in general.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I was just answering your question on if they advertised it, because I was also curious of the answer, haha.

edit: How do you like extensions to notify of new features? I've seen some do a new tab popup post-install, some just add them and you discover them like DDG, and I'm sure a few have added new features I'll never know about because they're disabled by default. I've always found the new tab way annoying, and I've been slightly less annoyed by just adding the feature with a way to disable.

thundermuffin

il y a 3 ansdiscuss

I was curious what the answer to this was, so I went to their Chrome extension page[0] and the icon + UI is prominently displayed in the 5th image. They also mention email (albeit you may be able to argue it's too vague) in the very first image. They also mention the feature in the extension's description with a brief "what is it?" blurb. You do have to expand the overview section to see it, but I think that's on Google's UI and not on any individual extension/developer being shady (it's been so long since I've installed a new extension, but a quick glance around the store makes it seem like everybody with a "long" description has stuff hidden like they do).

[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/duckduckgo-privacy...