Anubis is by far the least annoying throttler I encounter. Entirely agreed, just crank it up when you get a flood, I much prefer waiting a couple seconds to interacting with custom UI for tens of seconds.
I'm so glad to see that (essentially) HashCash is coming back. Now we just need it for email, like it was originally designed for...
Manipulating "studies" doesn't help reveal how true this is (or even if it is, do we perhaps have an inherent level of addiction and phones are just an easy target?), nor help find effective ways to reduce it.
Does it just use "here" / viewing box as a bias, not a hard cutoff? Personally I definitely expect "here" to mean "absolutely no results outside my window under any circumstances" (with some room for fuzziness with different screen aspect ratios, though even then I expect fewer results, not more). I'm not familiar with what Photon does tho, and it's not particularly clear from a quick skim of the site/readme.
I do have resist-fingerprinting on, thanks! I'll have to poke at that, I'm curious about the technical reasons. A dialog would help, this is the first I've heard of it and I don't mind exceptions for sites that aren't injecting javascript on billions of unrelated pages.
>and they're on the edges of the map
I don't think they were very edge-y from what I remember... but I'll double check. And will get a screenshot if I disagree - maybe it's something about window size or display density.
>we don't enable category discovery and search at high zoom.
Yeah, I've seen that in a few apps. It's kinda fine when zoomed far out as it's not like you'd be getting a representative distribution, and it might flood more specific (and intended) results out. It broadly makes sense, though I mostly see people confused and frustrated by it in-person (there's rarely any way to tell it has happened). Some of that is just them being overly familiar with only Google though.
But if that category search is not enabled, why doesn't it find business name matches? And why are the results far outside the viewing window?
Also I think that zoom level is almost certainly worth allowing (not necessarily defaulting to) category search. In a dense city it'll overwhelm things, but in much of the USA that might find 2-3 things, if any at all. Maybe it's worth blending in the number of results you'd get if it was enabled when deciding? Like "<10, use category". Or do you also do that?
Prioritisation on search behaviors is super hard, I definitely understand that... but that's why user-controlled options are useful. OSM apps nigh-universally seem to be removing that as the years go by, and the end result is that it's almost unusable because it doesn't let you find things you know exist. Google mitigates it with enormous amounts of ad money and hundreds/thousands of engineers feeding recommendation systems to show 10 decent results out of 100,000 matches (and a lot of learned helplessness by their users), but I don't think that's worth emulating, and they still have a ton of optional controls for filtering. OSM data is convoluted and messy and hard to make convenient, but not having any control at all seems obviously worse to me. Even a `raw-field-name:"value"` seems better, it's passively learnable and fairly easy when tokenized.
---
Lest this all seem like ranting / an upset user: I just have lots of opinions about mapping! And I'm broadly rather unhappy with existing apps. I'm literally always glad to see new attempts, and I don't expect everything to be built for me, so thank you for trying things :) I'm entirely happy to say a ton more or just not be your target audience and stick to technical stuff.
both seem equally undesirable to me in all cases where I intend neither. though one also risks undefined behavior, so that is strictly worse.
the reason I use a type system is to make error classes unrepresentable (where possible) or a failure. these are both leaky abstractions in the worst possible manifestation: silent misbehavior at runtime.
that argument (and many others) also round to essentially "implicit imprecise integer casting is surprising but we do it anyway" which is... perhaps the actual problem???
I've made lints for Go that simply disallow implicit number casting, and omfg the (real, occurring but unnoticed) bugs it found. those kinds of lints are trivial to build, you can just stop doing it. forcing visible casts made many of these problematic patterns extremely suspicious at a glance, catching issues at review time far more easily.
as much as I'm not really a fan of Go, and I would love to spend some time in a language that defaults to unsigned ints by default to see just how pleasant or painful it really is, I do think Go makes a reasonable tradeoff here.
signed ints are rather obviously the majority decision, so that default is defensible, and their const / compile-time math is arbitrary precision. so as long as you can describe your math as either wholly const or can move all overflow-risky stuff into a const equation, you're good - Go's compiler will fail if it exceeds the bounds of whatever number you try to cast it to (implicitly or explicitly).
signed overflow (or underflow) is frequently undefined behavior. (often because it's undefined in C)
unsigned is frequently defined. (often because it's defined in C)
tough choice.
(honestly I just lean towards "over/underflow should raise unless explicitly allowed", the ratio of unintended to intended-and-fully-checked overflow behavior is almost certainly FAR beyond 100:1)
Game websites are second only to restaurants in average UI complexity. Lots of them do extremely complicated stuff to provide game-realistic framerates to visitors so they can see if it meets their expectations (10fps or so).
I mean it when I say that's "maybe slightly better than average". When it gets extra weird I generally go check the OSM node data out of curiosity, and fairly often I find searches returning things where literally no field at all matches any word I searched for, across many different apps. I don't really think that's an address parsing issue, though I have definitely noticed many apps being picky (but completely unspecified) about search formatting when looking for addresses.
The only thing I'm seeing there is that line-wrapping might do [something], and a suggested workaround (which, oddly, they don't implement on the page). And the line-wrapping issue doesn't look like that to me, at least when I do it.
tbh I would probably enjoy a dirt-cheap viewfinder-and-display-less camera, like an even-cheaper charmera. it'd also make a great party-favor thing: hand them out before an event, and optionally gather photos from people at the end.
A lot of the time that happened, when I checked it was because a lot of the assets were relatively uncompressed, so DMG-compression shrank them considerably. I haven't noticed the binaries themselves being this compressible.
But that's just "noticed", I definitely haven't paid much attention. And don't have a mac nowadays, so I can't go check my hard drive now.
Kinda interestingly: it zips to 17MB, but the binary looks to be 56MB (davit.app/contents/macos/davit). That seems like a surprising amount of compression for a binary - embedded assets maybe? Possibly this is normal for mac apps though?
"coffee": shows city names in other states, and two places in Iraq.
"valentine": shows... house icons? and a business icon in other states and countries. (top result is apparently a "commune" in France. not sure I'd use a house icon for that tbh)
"valentine coffee": good substring matches for the business name (3 results) and two results in other countries.
Contact me: [email protected] . The "hn" helps me organize; it's unnecessary, but appreciated.
I'm also currently @[email protected]