phpnode

You're right of course, at the time of writing there were only 2 comments in this thread, and both were along the same lines which made the effect seem more pronounced.

One of Putin's defining characteristics is that he does not leave things to chance. Why wouldn't he use every tool and trick available to him in order to secure his grip on power?

I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your comment is strongly reminiscent of this classic Russian political tactic for dealing with criticism from the west: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

An asteroid impact is presumably not a man made disaster though, for the foreseeable future at least.

Now we just need a four letter initialism in order to describe this mechanism. Maybe JUDL? (JSON-based User-Interface Description Language), or if we were to switch the representation to something more SGML-like, maybe UIML (pronounced wee-mull)

That title is unconscionable. Here's a link to the actual paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/35/e2107289118

edit: title was edited

Latency is the biggest problem with video meetings and I can only imagine it's worse with this.

In normal human interaction you can see people's reactions to what you're saying and doing within microseconds of taking an action, you can subtly and automatically adjust your presentation, your pace and your expressions to build greater rapport. Over video calls you need to introduce artificial pauses to make sure that everyone has caught up, and it's really jarring compared to being face to face.

I'm sure aesthetics play a large role too, lidar is not only costly, it's bulky and ugly.

To a layman the sole reliance on cameras seems like one of Tesla's biggest mistakes.

Fortune favours the brave, occasionally!

Markets and irrationality and solvency quote goes here

Stocks like Tesla have long been divorced from business realities so I wouldn't put too much stake in that

I still really prefer a hardware keyboard and miss my android G1 in many ways. I'm typing this on my touch screen phone and it's so much slower than texting was even on an ordinary numeric keypad with predictive text. For me touch screens ended productivity on phones and they solely became consumption devices

You would rather move the goal posts than acknowledge the issue?

You're underestimating the level of breakage here, it's not just a few tutorial sites it's tens of millions of websites, many unmaintained. Like them or not alert(), confirm() and prompt() are key pieces of functionality depended on for literally decades now. I'm trying to imagine the economic cost of this change and it's just enormous.

Do you have any idea how much of the web will break if alert(), confirm() and prompt() are removed? Tens of millions of websites, many of which are no longer maintained will stop working. This is the destruction of the web over a UX issue - fix the UX issue, don't break the web!

Those functions should be deprecated and new applications should be discouraged from using them, but they should never be removed.

the alert(), confirm(), and prompt() themselves interrupt normal browsing, so I'm not sure what you mean here. They're synchronous so block the main thread, but they also block other user interactions until they're dismissed, so what would be the benefit in leaving normal browsing unaffected if the user cannot browse anyway?

That breaks the web by definition. There is no way to implement a non-blocking alert(), confirm(), or prompt() in a way that doesn't break existing code that uses them, and that's a lot of code, a lot of the web.

Tweets from Google employees who work on chrome:

https://twitter.com/estark37/status/1422694855390629893

https://twitter.com/domenic/status/1422647331804037120

https://twitter.com/domenic/status/1422647483944034308

https://twitter.com/domenic/status/1422704005453582337

The UX issue is directly highlighted in their rationale for the change.

Calls to alert(), confirm() and prompt() cannot be polyfilled or safely replaced in the general case because they explicitly block the main thread. That behaviour might not be desirable, but it was the path chosen when the relevant code was written. While some maintained applications will be able to switch to asynchronous alternatives, many older and unmaintained websites - the long tail of the web, will stop working.

They are planning to deprecate them from the platform entirely, this is the first step

deprecation is totally fine, log a warning in the console, discourage people from using it, but don't throw the existing web under a bus because your UX team can't think of a nice way to visually distinguish it from the browser's chrome!

it's not good, this change will break huge swathes of the web if it goes ahead as planned, lots of older websites just won't work any more and many newer ones will also be affected.

I think the poster is having some personal difficulties in their life, let's be kind.

I didn't find this refutation especially convincing, and the way it is presented makes it seem ideologically motivated.

The underlying argument in that article is that the people around Calment would have known that Yvonne is not Jeanne, and therefore they would have been caught.

An alternative explanation is that the people around Calment knew nothing of her claiming to be Jeanne at all until much later on in her life. By which time the only people who knew about the fraudulent claim would be either very old themselves, or sympathetic to the situation an old and dear friend or family member has found themselves in.

The only way to know for sure would be DNA testing.

If it was fraud, it was likely mail fraud, at least at first. That is to say, the people closest around her would not necessarily have known that she was claiming to be Jeanne - the family only had to have a death certificate issued in Yvonne's name, everything else could have continued as normal. And when she did finally have to publicly assume Jeanne's identity enough time had passed that few people would remember her mother.

it can be both!

Where would these real USD come from if USDT is worthless? Why would a holder of USDC or DAI accept USDT in return if USDT is worthless?

I don't think there really are any (or many) reserves. I think they just printed a bunch of tokens, used the tokens to buy BTC and to inflate the value of the crypto they hold in Bitfinex (Bitfinex and Tether are approximately the same company). If they throw in the towel they lose their ability to influence the crypto market which is where their actual gains come from.

Any rational person can see that Tether poses an existential risk to the crypto economy - but the market is highly irrational. There was an interview with tether's CTO and GC the other day that was an absolute car crash[0] and should be sounding deafening warning bells for anyone invested in crypto, but instead we see the BTC price shoot up by 15% in the days since it aired. It is utter madness.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBEqyiO35cQ

I would probably spend my time focussed on growing and sustaining my companies and hiring very skilled people to do that engineering work for me, I'd be very interested in the engineering work, but I wouldn't be doing that work myself. Similarly I don't expect Mark Zuckerberg writes much code at facebook these days, there's just too much other stuff to do