abanana

Alternatively, read "tabs" as "windows" - we know the word "tabs" is not the important point of that post (and that the number 200 is exaggerating for effect). Right clicking a link and selecting "open in new window" opened a new window in the same browser instance, not a separate instance, although there wouldn't be any visual difference.

> blue’s connection with boys and pink’s with girls wasn’t solidified until the mid-20th century... the gendered nature of the colors was either reversed or at best inconsistent (Paoletti’s original argument, which has since been misconstrued as a total reversal).

> ...5 million books published in the U.S. between 1880 and 1980, he found many examples of the standard “blue for boys” and “pink for girls” association, but virtually none for the reverse... “remarkable consistency in gender coding over time” rather than a sharp shift around the 1940s, leading him to conclude that the magazine excerpts often cited as proof of the reversal were anomalies.

> ...follow-up analysis... published between 1881 and 1930... recorded 34 instances of the standard color coding and 28 instances of the reverse... “Pink-blue gender coding showed a certain degree of inconsistency (though not a reversal)... “However, the true extent of that inconsistency is still unclear, as different kinds of sources return dramatically different pictures.”

@ternaryoperator: perhaps that's a good example of AI not being real-world-helpful, if you did ask it for "specific citations of pink being recommended for boys", because that sounds like it was asked to cherry-pick, and did.

Yes, that's right. I thought I'd try it in that older browser that I still happen to have installed, as the user above didn't immediately let us know what that mobile browser was. It may or may not help by at least giving you a browser version you can use to test. As I mentioned somewhere else, it makes sense to use some sort of older browser as a proxy for older browsers in general, when testing.

Developers are always looking for new ways to do what we've always done, often using more technically complicated ways to recreate the simplest things. It's fun from the puzzle-solving point of view, but your choice of earliest browsers you want to support depends on your user base.

I don't disagree! But at the same time, part of our job as web developers involves acknowledging the reality of what our users actually do.

What do early flexbox implementations (something like 12-15 years ago?) have to do with anything? We're not talking about browsers as old as that! They weren't even bugs, they were early implementations of early versions of the standard, so who exactly is the one with no idea here? That level of browser inconsistencies is long gone.

Those of us with years of experience of building user-centric front-ends are not the ones who jump to use new browser features too quickly.

I won't be continuing this conversation, due to the general arrogance and condescension displayed in your posts - following "stupid", "insane" and "lazy" with "bad decision", "where have you been" and "you have no idea".

> expecting developers to waste time working around all the bugs in those old browsers is just insane

What bugs? The ancestor posts are talking about frameworks immediately using features that were just added to browsers - i.e. more recently than those older versions. Nothing at all to do with bugs. Can you help us to see what you've misunderstood here? Perhaps not dismissing users as "stupid", developers as "insane", and admins (?) as "lazy", would be a good starting point.

From a quick look at the second horizontal strip that starts "what is this?", and without wasting time doing too much digging, it appears to be ultimately caused by using a grid layout for a heading followed by a few paragraphs, all of which fill the available (constrained) width, which amounts to one of the absolute simplest layouts possible in CSS - block. Last time I saw something similar, albeit with flexbox not grid, it was from a junior developer who appeared to have only learned flexbox and nothing else.

As a quick semi-fix, just disabling grid-template-columns on .base-layout is enough to fix almost everything except the constrained width.

And yes, it makes sense to use one particular old browser as a general proxy for older browsers in general, so people shouldn't get hung up on the particular version of Safari you happened to mention.

Perhaps, if you're not using a sidebar for bookmarks or vertical tabs or whatever, it suggests something ought to have changed in UI design back when widescreen monitors became the norm?

I've seen similar before - people not understanding that certain things are at their most successful if they're unobtrusive.

It does sound like the counter-stance is mainly also the view of one person, Dr Miles Russell at Bournemouth Uni. But from bits I've read before, Sir Mortimer Wheeler was from the same era as Sir Arthur Evans, that time when they enjoyed absolute authority and could not be challenged. That meant their mistakes, and even deliberate lies, had to be considered to be 100% known fact and would not be corrected until after their deaths.

Just a correction: Netcafes don't have to get special licences. I'm not aware of any such licences existing anymore. They just buy however many standard retail copies or online accounts they want. Sometimes a publisher will see the marketing value and will provide some copies/licences at no charge.

Going back 15-20 years or so, Valve used to run a "Cybercafe Program" that was a large monthly expense for cybercafes, but shut it down after a while because it wasn't worth the cost of administration. Now cybercafes buy Steam accounts same as any end user. Asking any publisher for a cybercafe or "commercial exploitation" licence always invoked the response "Um - no idea?" from any department you asked, coupled with "We're afraid to suggest anything" from the legal department and "just use standard copies I suppose?" from the marketing department.

While a lot of devs love to use brand-new stuff that's only just been added to some browsers, some of us are not willing when we know it won't work for (almost) all users. The scroll() function is too new for use in production, IMO (but good to know it exists, to revisit after a while). If I have to code something else anyway, or copy-and-paste a polyfill, then why not just use a more robust option in the first place.

The stuff around SimCity in this article is poorly written. It seems the author has misunderstood it to have been a one-off special case. I looked back at Joel Spolsky's article, and he does make it quite clear that the SimCity example was just one of many: "it still ran old 16 bit software perfectly. Microsoft obsessed about this, spending a big chunk of change testing every old program they could find with Windows 95".

The article does later mention "Windows XP’s hidden database of app fixes" but doesn't appreciate that the concept really started with Windows 95, and in a big way, not "just to cover up one game’s bug".

Alan Sugar was right when he told off a contestant on The Apprentice UK for doing it - it's not meant to be something you call yourself, it's something others call you as a means of recognising your success if you've earned it. Pity that doesn't appear to be the dominant viewpoint.

It's also noticeable how the vast majority of well-known people are described on Wikipedia as either an entrepreneur or a businessperson. The rationale is sometimes as simple as "their management team sells merchandise with their name and image"! I've read that it's a very deliberate attempt by their marketing people, who push their ideas via Wikipedia etc, to give them more credibility than they supposedly get from things like sports or acting, by jumping on this fashion.

"Reactivity" means "when those variables change, some generic code already exists to update the DOM instantly". As opposed to writing specific pieces of code to make those changes directly.

Unfortunately, with React, "updating the DOM automatically" generally means: you update the data; React recreates the entire DOM as a new copy in memory; React runs a diff checker to find out what changed from the real DOM; React makes each individual change in the real DOM. With React (or other virtual-DOM-centered alternatives) being used for the smallest of web projects, so many small sites do all that work when the procedure ought to be as simple as: you update the data; you update the DOM directly.

It comes down to inexperienced devs not being able to consider which tool is best for the job at hand, and just hammering nails into every web project in the same way.

That's always the trotted-out response, most often recited by people who've read someone else saying it but not had the experience to form an opinion for themselves.

You absolutely don't end up recreating a massive, bloated, slow framework that tries to be as generic as possible to try to be everything to everyone. What you end up creating is a relatively tiny, fast, piece of code that is specific to that site's needs. The difference in size, speed and simplicity tends to be absolutely enormous.

> a significant part of that success came from Notch's very active involvement in the community

I've never heard it argued otherwise, although it probably doesn't get emphasized enough. It was very interesting at the time to watch how closely he interacted with the community, asking opinions and listening, while also making them feel involved by being open about the details of what he was doing. It was a massively refreshing counter to the way the big game studios were coming across so arrogantly at the time, being certain they knew better than their users about what the users wanted. Notch's attitude created that community feel around the game, and made you feel unusually close to the development and even the decision-making processes. That in turn led to word-of-mouth advertising that resulted in Minecraft becoming one of the biggest selling games of all time.

If you're sure cURL is sending the Accept header correctly without WebP, e.g. just "Accept: image/png,image/jpeg" (note my error in my earlier post, it's Accept not Accepts), and the server is still serving WebP, then it's misconfigured and there may be nothing you can do, short of swearing at it.

It means the technical differences between format, and the real-world choice of which file you want, don't match.