613 karma · joined October 10, 2010
https://squaredle.app/ (you can also just type if you find swiping annoying)
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr/
https://www.flagle.io/Naming for an international audience is hard.
The header image on the website shows slashed zeroes, but the font preview doesn't, which is unexpected. In fact when previewing in Google Fonts there's barely any visual distinction between uppercase letter O and zero. There's only a very slight difference in width which you actually have to look for. Punctuation isn't centered in their box and leaves so much tailing space the test text `5240N 15:01 .84 8,9` reads like `5240N 15: 01 . 84 8, 9`
These problems don't exist as much in the variable width font, where there is no tailing space in the punctuation and the uppercase Os are rounder.
There's also some weird pinching in the corners of N. 1, l and I are perfectly distinguishable though, so at least it's got that going for it.
Reason for review: hostile, insulting, or degrading
/s
[0]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Functions/arguments/calleehttps://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/devtools-user/debugg...
Edit: just realized this is literally the first thing mentioned in the linked article.
I've recently discovered FM-84. Eg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5AuJF9v2Lw&list=OLAK5uy_lra...
Edit: some of their songs do have lyrics though.
When you say it is 6 percentage points higher it means you had a percentage Y% and it is now (Y+6)%, a value which cannot be determined unless you know Y, never mind the reference absolute value it relates to.
In this particular case you can say it went from 7% to 13.2%, so if you ignore "%" as the unit the actual change is from 7 to 13.2; a ((13.2-7)/7) ≈ 0.8857 = 88% change. Had the original percentage been say 67%, a 6.2 p.p. change would have increased the percentage to 73.2%; a much smaller ((73.2-67)/67) ≈ 0.0925 = 9% change.
Had the change been "six percent of seven percent", the new value would be 7+7*(6/100) = 7.42 (percent).
The advantage of generators over arrays is that you don't have to allocate a large array, so you can handle large numbers of elements while keeping a lower memory footprint.
They can also hide batching/chunking logic. You could have code that repeatedly downloads of separate JSON files with 200, or 500, or 5000 elements at a time, then return a generator that goes through each element at a time. The consuming code will be none the wiser.
Looking at the source code of the cursor app [0], we can see it draws the mouse cursor and skips the rest. The transparent console app [1] is doing something more complicated which I haven't tried to fully understand, but which definitely involves massaging pixels and even temporarily saves pixel data in ctx.store.b1 and ctx.store.b2 so it looks like some kind of double buffering.
[0]: https://github.com/Ruddle/Fomos/blob/cba0460af59e63f46c7646f8a2f29d574ff0d722/app_cursor/src/main.rs#L75
[1]: https://github.com/Ruddle/Fomos/blob/cba0460af59e63f46c7646f8a2f29d574ff0d722/app_console/src/main.rs#L384To save someone else a search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ptMTLzV4-I&list=PLJHszsWbB6...