The parent comment was specifically and exclusively talking about autism, not Down's syndrome. I'm addressing their claim that it is "ridiculous" for an autistic person to "claim" to be autistic when other autistic people have worse outcomes.
I'm not interested in litigating the fairly obvious point that Down's syndrome is a much worse prognosis than ASD, and the comment to which I responded says nothing about it either.
> "It's so odd to me that we haven't come up with a term for high functioning autism to separate from low functioning."
If you are interested to learn, autistic people are typically assigned a level of support needs on a scale of 1 to 3. Most people who would once have received a diagnosis of Aspergers now receive the "level 1" designation. Based on your description, your family member is likely "level 3", possibly with comorbidities? I was assigned "level 2".
> "I cannot recall why Asperger's as a term was dropped or deemed controversial"
It was dropped because a number of labels, now all considered to be ASD, were discovered to be different presentations of the same underlying disorder. The divisions break down under scrutiny and the apparent modal jumps disappear when you control for comorbidities and the ability to mask.
> "How is it any different than people with obsessive compulsive tendencies claiming they have OCD? There's a huge difference."
I'm not the other poster, but I'm a different autistic adult to whom your complaints might apply. To answer this question, the difference is that I call myself an autist because I have been diagnosed as autistic, due to meeting the diagnostic criteria of autism.
> "this is the equivalent of stolen valor"
Please go to the equivalent of hell.
Disabled people are allowed to call ourselves by the correct labels without apologising that our suffering is less severe or less obvious than someone else sharing the same label.
I'm sure the browser does do that, and plenty of other optimisations too!
This thing isn't trying to do standard text layout faster than the browser, it's trying to enable more exotic/dynamic/custom layouts while keeping reasonable performance. Take a look at the demos linked in the repo's readme; those are things which the browser's layout engine can't do on its own.
What you're missing is that each segment (typically a word) only needs to be measured once, in the setup phase. The canvas gets thrown away after that, and subsequent layout passes all reuse the cached measurements.
If you only perform layout once, it doesn't save any work. If you need to reflow many times, it saves a lot.
It's a matter of integrity. Support or oppose whoever you like, but if you change your principles based on the person in question, then you don't have principles at all.
> Or do they tag things and say "Customer X signed up on this date, so he is bound by T&C number 12, whereas this other customer signed up a year later and is bound by T&C number 13". That seems unwieldy since there is a common infrastructure.
If the company would like their T&C to carry the force of a binding contract upon me, then yes, keeping track of my agreement seems like the absolute bare minimum they must do.
Either these things are real contracts or they are not. The idea that it's too onerous for a company to keep track of its contractual agreements is absurd. That's giving them all the benefits of a real contract with none of the obligations.
For anyone seeking more details on this act, it is embodied as "18 U.S. Code §1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers"[0], and applies specifically to the United States of America, a nation not involved in any way with this incident.
Upload progress. The Fetch API offers no way observe and display progress when uploading a file (or making any large request). jQuery makes this possible via the `xhr` callback.
It's silly to treat this like a totalizing partisan issue where everything must be clearly "pro-ai" or "anti-ai".
Browsers are currently incentivised to add a bunch of new features outside their traditional role. Some people prefer to keep the browser's role simple. It's not ideological and it's not "hating".
It doesn't matter if a library is written in TS or JS; you cannot meaningfully protect against other code calling you incorrectly.
Sure, you can check if they gave you a string instead of a number. But if you receive an array of nested objects, are you going to traverse the whole graph and check every property? If the caller gives you a callback, do you check if it returns the correct value? If that callback itself returns a function, do you check that function's return type too? And will you check these things at every single function boundary?
This kind of paranoid runtime type-checking would completely dominate the code, and nobody does it. Many invariants which exist at compile-time cannot be meaningfully checked at runtime, even if you wanted to. All you can do is offer a type-safe interface, trust your callers to respect it, and check for a few common mistakes at the boundary. You cannot protect your code against other code calling it incorrectly, and in practice nobody does. This is equally true for JS and TS.
Coming from an era of tiles and sprites, Lemmings was exciting because it had real destructible terrain. The game action happens in its pixel buffer, and every little speck of dirt can make a difference to how the characters behave.
When I saw this adaptation back in 2004, I was amazed because the web didn't even HAVE an API for its pixel buffer; the canvas element didn't arrive until a year later! All the destructible/buildable terrain here is faked out with stacked `img` elements. They had to simulate a simple form of graphics with a more complex one, because that's all the platform made available.
This is a linear sequence of bits, which when interpreted as a Game of Life board, "prints" an exact copy of itself 2 pixels to the right (leaving no trace of the original).
I suppose its job would be easier if it only had to construct a copy of itself rather than "moving" itself, but I enjoy the interpretation that it's a linear "tape" of bits which prints its own code transposed by 2 pixels, and takes an unfathomable amount of time and space to do so. Beautiful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html