err4nt

    It's hard to classify what it is. It's not a video, because it's generated dynamically. It's not a game, because you just watch. It's not a screensaver, because it's not the 90s. Maybe it's a "demo"?

It's an animation.

"How quickly can I build 50 different tiny demos that each show one thing"? Small size means you can focus on one thing at a time, before you hit #50 you'll probably already be building off of what you've learned in past demos and combining them as you try new things.

They have some good resources for obscure technologies, like XPath, but for the big ones like HTML/CSS/JS there's both the danger that they're out of date and not showing you what's new, while also possibly showing you old hacks and workarounds that are against modern best practice.

MDN is a better choice for (almost) anything MDN has content for.

Intentionally causing a patient to die is not medical care. I live in Canada and I fear some day when I'm old I may be stuck living in a building where these "angels of death" visit the various rooms down the hall from me. Chilling.

Maybe not, I read that as compared to opioids, both Cannabis and Kratom being safer, with this person saying Kratom is more useful than Cannabis for this. Hopefully I read that right!

speculation, but hopefully grounded in truth. There are few networks in Canada, and many of the providers on these networks resell service on the network that's owned and operated by only a few (3? more? less?) companies

I haven't seen GoT but Jason Momoa was already a decently well known name before that show, he has been in other things and he is so unique, once you've seen him you never forget him.

Being in web development since 2004, I both thought the day would never arrive, and would have arrived a lot sooner than 2022. Tech-wise, there were times when IE was advanced, often in non-standard ways, but it was innovative. There are other ways where it was a major thorn in the side of every web developer and required much extra attention and care. And yet, since about 2014 or 2015, the world of web standards had caught up to and surpassed IE in every area. So here's to a surprisingly bittersweet farewell

If they have guns issued to them, yet refuse use them even in an active shooter situation to protect the lives of innocent children being massacred, they probably don't need the guns for any situation. If police carrying all these unused guns around is any kind of liability (danger, theft) they should probably not be carrying them in the first place. (I'm okay with Police using them when the situation calls for it, but if they refuse to use them when the situation calls for it then they don't need them at all)

This particular snippet would remove it entirely - if instead you had a default value you'd like to always apply to a tag if it's found, the code would be equivalently simple but just a little different.

For more advanced queries than standard CSS selectors provide, XPath is also supported by every browser and available via document.evaluate() (which is not eval() by the way)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/XPath/Introduct...

jQuery never did make the migration to being packaged/delivered as a modern (i.e. post-2015) JavaScript module. This precludes it from being used in a lot of modern JavaScript workflows.

No matter what the library itself provides, to use it you have to go back to working like how developers in 2014 and before used to work with JavaScript, so that's a very real consideration that the "I still like to use jQuery" folks never mention. Are they writing all of their code as pre-2015 'classic' JavasScript as well?

There is .forEach() on NodeLists, so you can do stuff like this in every browser, no lib, no helper functions needed:

    document.querySelectorAll('a').forEach(tag => {
      // operate on tag
    })

It should be fairly straightforward (1 line of JavaScript required to actually get the job done) to make a user-script, or even a browser extension that obliterates any offending `<meta>` tag like this. Something like:

    document.querySelectorAll('meta[name="viewport"][content*="user-scalable=no"]').forEach(tag => tag.remove())

And if you wanted to get really fancy, you could use window.setInterval or a Mutation Observer to watch for any dynamically generated `<meta>` tags and continue to remove them forever if they every show up.

While it's not ideal to have to use a snippet or an extension, you could fix this for yourself (or individual web users) in a way that 'fixed' literally every site on the internet for that person. So I wonder if that's a viable route to a solution!

There's a reason: legitimate performance differences that exist between them.

It won't increase revenue if a large chunk of the currently subscribed-for-life people bail, it'll be eternally forfeited profits.

Just as a thought experiment - how many people currently subscribed would be subscribed for 30+ more years if they could just maintain what they have been doing for 30 years? The potential lifetime revenue is so huge it is a shame any time they do something that makes a lifetime subscriber bail on 30+ years of subscription payments without a second thought.

It's like they have the fish on the hook and they're debating if they can catch more fish by cutting the ones they have loose.

Totally agree. I am paying to _not_ see ads. If they show me ads anyway I simply won't use the service.

And/or how to predict the reaction and behaviour of people in an event like that.

I neither disagree with the practice, nor am upset by it. In fact this HN thread is the first time in my life (I'm in my 30s) that I've even heard about it. And I have worked in the past with firearm training companies. It's just something entirely new to me right now, if you can believe that.

This is actually part of the design of CSS custom properties. It's not an abuse, but part of how they've been designed to be used. You can trigger updates from your own code programmatically, as well as any event listeners (built-in or custom) or from Observers the browser may have (e.g. Resize Observer, Intersection Observer, Mutation Observer) or any other ways you want to update them!

Do not practice writing invalid CSS, if this gets out online on the internet it will prevent any read `todo` property from being used because people are camping on CSS's name space.

Instead, any author is allowed to invent _any_ property, so long as the property name begins with a double-dash (--) and you can put anything inside as a value so long as it doesn't break CSS syntax

    a {
      --note:
    
        So you could do this instead and it would be standard CSS, perfectly fine for all people forever!
    
      ;
    }

The reason CSS will never have //-style single-line comments is that the entire CSS language is parsed as a single line, so if you ever entered a //-style single line comment there would be no return from it for the rest of the input stream.

(Kind of like the <plaintext> element in HTML, once you write the <plaintext> open tag all text after that is plain text, so you can't write a </plaintext> to get out of it - the whole rest of the file is in that mode with no return)

Today we have CSS custom properties which do similar things:

- Authors can define custom properties as long as they start with a double-dash, like --demo

- Authors can leave these values empty, or put any code that doesn't break CSS's syntax inside. This can be CSS values, it can be JSON, it can be other languages, even some JavaScript could be stored in CSS to be read later

- Using JavaScript you can read the values of CSS custom properties, and set them

So it's possible with a tiny bit of JS to re-create what the old IE expression() function used to do in any modern browser in a fully standards-compliant way

I've been happy with Fish shell for years!

Yes, I could fiddle and twiddle with settings and configure a nicer shell, but Fish on its default settings on any OS just makes things smooth and easy!

> "The good thing about Science is that it’s true, whether or not you believe in it."

Just playing the devil’s advocate here - but isn't science also what we call the only study that's consistently and routinely wrong?

From what I've researched you _can_ plant them from seeds but it may take 15 years to mature. And not necessarily every plant that you plant will produce.

So if you had a lot of land, and a lot of time (decades) you might be able to cultivate a huckleberry patch, but that's quite a commitment.

- Never be afraid to refactor code

- Never be afraid to discard code

- Try building the same thing in a new way

- Try building using the same way in a new place

Considering how frequently my innocent images (petting my cat, taking a photo of a pepper growing in my garden, pointing to a word printed on a page in a book) trip Discord's automatic-bad-image-blocker and are unable to be uploaded to Discord because they think they are bad, I'm a little worried that when they turn this technology on, instantly many 100% innocent photos people have taken will be quietly flagged and put people on lists without them ever knowing it, and as they go through life this non-thing that they were never charged with (to be able to be found innocent) will follow them and haunt them and impact other business relationships, etc. All because of pictures a computer thought was something else.

I also had read this verse as capping human lifespan to 120 years, but someone pointed out to me that what may be referred to here is a duration of time before destruction of the earth, that might have been the countdown to the flood.

I think that would be the worst of both worlds, the good part of digital media are no rewinding, in your pocket, on demand. And the benefit of physical are big artwork, tangible, one copy. It is not about the sound of vinyl, but having it in your hands.