Yaina

I mean, a build step is not required to build a website, but I'd say anyone who wants to have more than one HTML page and one stylesheet will probably want some sort of build step sooner rather than later.

Like, if you have two or more pages, you probably want them to share the same header or footer, and unless you want to A) repeat the same markup on each page or B) inject them with a client-side script, you will need some sort of build step. There are more accessible solutions out there, like Hugo.

How else are you going to achieve that? Sure you could use PHP, but I don't see how that is more accessible or maintainable than having a build step.

I think it's (increasingly) not as binary as either MPA or SPA. Although it has been for quite some time now.

A lot of web developers strive for some amount of templating and client-side interactivity on their websites. And when frameworks like React came up they solved interactivity issues but made it hard to integrate into existing server-side templating systems, which were mostly using different programming languages.

So because integrating the frameworks for client-side interactivity was hard, the frameworks also took on the job of templating the entire site and suddenly SPAs were popular. I think a big draw here was that the entire tooling became JavaScript.

But the drawbacks were apparent, I guess a big one was that search engines could not index these sites and of course performance, so the frameworks got SSR support. The site was still written in the framework, rendered to HTML on the server and then hydrated back to a SPA on the client.

Now, even more recently we got stuff like islands, where you still use the handy web framework but can choose which parts of your site should actually be interactive (i.e. hydrated) on the client. And I believe this is the capability that has just long been missing. Some sites require no JS on the client (could even be SSGs), others require a little interactivity, and some make most sense as full blown SPAs.

We're finally entering the era where the developer has that choice even though they use the same underlying framework.

Is it just me or does their logo look very similar to the Waterfox logo?

I do think the current reactions are a bit out of proportion, although that might be to pressure Unity into reversing their changes.

Unlike for Reddit users though, these pricing changes impact revenue calculations of developers and there are viable alternatives. Additionally from what I gleaned a lot if developers are not particularly happy with the state of the Unity tools, and sudden pricing changes surely don't inspire much confidence either.

So, I don't think no games will release in two years or so made in Unity, but this might have kicked off or accelerate an erosion of Unity's developer base. At least those developers that give Unity the prestige of being the engine of choice for Indie and AA games.

Maybe all of this is, purely from a revenue point of view, still worth it for them though.

Seems like an unattractive pricing model for developers.

Why would you tie your pricing to something like installs, which is completely unrelated to the profits the game is making.

This just means that developers will still have to pay install fees for their old games, as people re-install them on different machines, while not making a lot of profits in sales from that game anymore. Developers might be incentivized to remove older games from libraries like steam.

How so?

Firefox will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...

Work on Android extensions got picked up again :)

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/12/15/new-extensions-av...

That was in the original spec, but had to be changed because of technical constraints in the toolbar code.

Hopefully that can be addressed at some point in the near future :)

Well, for most Windows users the default PDF application is...Edge, so I think that is reasonable actually.

I feel like I could even make an argument how Microsoft is forcing Mozilla's hand here, by showing regularly showing prompts asking people to switch to Edge... I mean use "Microsoft's recommended Browser settings".

I feel like that is a very specific issue with the congress.gov website. Probably worth filing a bug about that!

Engineers are also in meetings.

I guess the reality is that nobody – no matter if PMs, designers, engineers or anyone – wants to sit in a weird virtual environment, if instead they could just quickly join a zoom meeting. Who wants to put on a headset and stare at a dead-eyed avatar if you could just turn on your webcam.

And that's just the work part of it, I would assume that Horizon Worlds has even less recreational value.

If these "concerned" parents want to offer their kids an "alternate truth" – how America is the best and freest country, without any institutional racism, and that all queer people are pedophiles – they can do so after school.

I recently used a package that converts typescript to JSON Schema, which I thought was pretty nice.

I get the legibility (and IntelliSense) of typescript interfaces but can make use of the all the validation libraries that use JSON Schema.

I primary use Telegram and sometimes Signal when I need to.

Telegram >is< very – very, very – shady but it's hard to argue with the extreme polish and attention to detail with which all of it's apps are made.

Signal does not even come close in terms of user experience (neither does Matrix) and Signal also does not seem to strive to catch up. Their position seems to be that security as a feature has to be enough.

I'd love to have an alternative to Telegram, but Signal ain't it.

Went to their list of instances, first one for me was one that hosts far-right political videos... oof

Maybe they should curate that list.

So...there are profiles (about:profiles) and you can run them in parallel. But it's not really feature meant for consumers as it is in Chrome.

I think the horrible truth about the education system is, is that it discourages wonder.

In college, you have 5 courses per semester, possibly homework and an important test at the end.

The homework has to be finished, essays need to be written and facts need to be learned for tests. All of this times 5. I think the most mentally draining part of it all is the constant context switching.

In the end the hunger of students to delve deeper is not super high, and a lot of lecturers want to stay close to the courses structure they originally planned out (sometimes years or decades ago).

A good lecturer can make one course go a little better, but IMO it's the system that discourages interest.

It's about punching down or punching up.

Why do people like Chappelle need to make fun of a group that is fighting for their rights and recognition across the world?

He's signalling that trans people should not be recognized as themselves, and their issues not taken seriously.

At this point it doesn't matter if people laugh at the end.

As far as I can tell, the idea that the trans community is pushing against science, is something that anti-trans groups are pushing.

The issue is not the precise distance, but that police officers can arrest you for being too close.

Let's say you were 4m away and got arrested anyways. The officer stopped you from filming and it deterred others to start filming too.

Even if the charges get dropped later on (which they might not), the police already succeeded in stopping you from filming.

I don't see what's wrong with drawing a moral line.

And it's not that all content needs to be inclusive, it's just about not showing content that is actively harmful to marginalized groups. Seems like a low bar to clear.

What's the point of assembling a diverse workforce, if their voices are not heard.

And it's not about "PC Culture", it's about people talking down on marginalized groups. A trans person having a comedy special and making jokes about their community would be very different.

They're not asking that for every film that includes trans-people, there should be one that does.

They're asking that if Netflix has to show content that actively makes fun of or discriminates against trans-people, that Netflix will at least balance it out with positive representation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this should still work if you write your own extension, right?

Two years ago I tried to set up my home-webserver with nixOS. I failed miserably.

The post hits the nail on the head: The documentation is horrible, and barely differentiates between the language, the package manager and the OS itself.

I really like the idea behind nix; maybe something with better execution comes up one day :)

This is really cool. I love threads, especially in larger channels!

If there are no threads everyone just has to patiently wait in line, when there is one conversation going on.

I didn't say anything about web frameworks or chasing latest trends.

Developing a cross-platform app that uses native interface elements is extremely time intensive and sometimes laughably complicated[1].

With design system I meant that designers create a spec how the UI should look like and behave (eg. the primary button in Firefox) and then engineers implement that in a reusable way. Designers can then use their own specs to create new surfaces and engineers can use their reusable components to make the specs real.

This is a lot more efficient than either maintaining three code paths for the whole UI or building and maintaining a complex abstraction framework for native surfaces. That's what XUL was.

That's the reason why there are barely any UI-heavy cross-platform apps and a lot of web-apps.

[1]https://den.dev/blog/windows-priority-shuffle/

The problem with modern, native-looking UI surfaces is that they are hard to design and maintain on cross-platform applications.

How do you design and implement an interface that feels native across platforms?

First there is the easy approach: The common denominator elements. Essentially what you get when creating a Java Application. The UI will probably look kind of native, but also outdated. Think Windows 89-Style Settings. You're also limited in how you can present options because you have so few form elements to play with.

The other approach to native is to use modern UI elements. For one thing these are not easy to get. While on macOS Cocoa bindings are at least available, on Windows it is pretty much impossible to get anything but the Windows-89 style form elements. Even if all the bindings were available, which also has to take various Linux Desktop Environments into account, then you had to design for and maintain multiple versions of the same settings menu.

So I hope this explains why non-native controls are a sensible approach. You create your own design system that is (mostly) consistent across platforms. Designers only have to design one surface, they can create new patterns if necessary and engineers only have to maintain one implementation. Of course they have to be accessible and they are. I say "mostly consistent" by the way, because Firefox still respects some UI conventions from operating systems. For example it uses system fonts, system font-scales, and changes naming conventions and button orders appropriately.

This reduces work but of course it still is work to update and maintain that surface. about:preferences in Firefox has quite become quite messy over the years and is neither loved by designers nor engineers, but it's time and resource intensive to update it.

I'm a bit annoyed that some subreddits are pushing their Discord servers. I think Reddit is a great forum but Discord definitely isn't..