wackget

In many ways a digital walkie talkie would be much better than an iPhone.

I'd love to have a device where I can push a button and talk to my contacts instantly. No more "Siri, call Jane"... "I'm sorry, I didn't catch that." "..."

But why? With mainstream websites pumping out literal megabytes of JavaScript, why spend time rewriting an entire library (with less features) to save 50KB?

We managed to raise a generation who think it's acceptable for JavaScript to be required in order to render a single page.

For some "web developers", this is literally how they create a page:

    import React from 'react';
    
    function App() {
        return (
            <div>
                <h1>Hello world!</h1>
                <p>This is my HTML page.</p>
            </div>
        );
    }
    
    export default App;

Why go for the simple method when you can instead simply hand-edit SVG code then add two extra HTML elements per icon?

You haven't noticed? Literally everything in web development has been in a constant cycle. Everything is reinvented and made significantly worse.

Next week: How to run your Docker React Node Babel Webpack Svelte grocery list application at the EDGE using Kubernetes on AWS serverless EC2 instances with Cloudflare workers.

EDIT: I forgot we're gonna use Bootstrap too.

Is this post a spam submission?

The website looks like a super generic landing page template; the kind you find when you search "youtube video downloader" and similar.

Take that "#1 AI Image Upscaler" banner for example. #1 according to who? The AI Image Upscaler Academy Awards panel?

No physical buttons, no purchase.

Great until you need to give someone an email address in real life and awkwardness ensues.

  Cashier: "What's your email?"
  Me:      "walmart@somedomain.com"
  Cashier: "No I meant YOUR email address."
  Me:      "Yeah walmart@somedomain.com"
  Cashier: "Oh do you work for Walmart???"
  Me:      "No see I set up my email so... oh nevermind, 420BLAZEIT@GMAIL.COM"

> they only want the ability to profit without having to invest in building a hardware platform

Well yeah; they're a software company. I also write software. Should I build my own hardware platform to release my apps?

You'd maybe like this obscure chiptune artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RqXWJkkoJw

That would just be jQuery.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uo3cL4nrGOk

Thank you; I will try.

I'm gonna ask here because I've not found a solution anywhere else:

I loved the Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor game but when I tried to play its sequel, Middle-earth: Shadow of War, I found the mouse input absolutely horrible.

Horrendous mouse lag, floaty camera control, and all the signs of a "mouse emulating gamepad" type situation.

Does anyone know if there's a way to fix this game? I'd love to play it on PC with a mouse but can't stomach it as-is.

This doesn't seem to work for me in any browser. No sound.

This guy unironically wrote an entire article about how to "get simplicity back" and avoid using server-side processing by doing a bunch of crazy convoluted JavaScript crap which runs on "the edge" (i.e. a server).

You can't make this up.

Your scorn should be addressed at the OP's customer, not OP themselves. If the customer doesn't have the resource to implement an API or whatever then OP's choice becomes either "awkwardly refuse the job" or "use the credentials they're given".

It's really funny seeing some of the outraged, self-righteous responses here from developers who probably take themselves too seriously.

The OP already said that their customer didn't have the resource to even connect to an API, so what on earth makes you think they're gonna be able to create some highly-abstrated API layer or some other "bEsT PrAcTiCe" way of exposing the data?

And even if they did create a view or API for the database instead of giving direct access, what makes you think they'd keep that view or API up-to-date? It's just as likely to break as a changing database schema is.

Stack Exchange sites have a horrible authentication system so using them as an example is a bad start.

However they could solve this "problem" in a number of ways, the most straightforward being to use subdomains instead of individual domains.

I put "problem" in quotes as it's not even a problem; it's browsers working as intended. When you visit different domain names, you should expect that your browser won't be aware of data (cookies) stored by other domains.

All of the API titles have been replaced by emojis () for me. Is this a bug or is it intentional?

The pricing info is confusing and maybe inaccurate(?)

It says:

Up to 500 emails / month 100 tests emails/month | 50 emails/day 100 test emails/day 50 emails/day

That's a bunch of conflicting info. I'm not sure what the actual limits are.

It also says "Remove watermark" in the free tier, but "No watermark" in the paid tier... what's the difference between those? Seems like you can have no watermark in either tier?

Finally, do you use dedicated IP addresses for sending? If so, how do you keep your IP reputation clean? What if a spammer signs up and sends thousands of spam emails - will my email sends also be affected because we share the same IP?

This is what happens when customers don't understand the separation between product manufacture and product fulfilment.

This was Amazon's fault (for re-selling a returned product as new) but it was also the reviewer's fault for blaming the manufacturer instead of the fulfiller.

I see it all the time in product reviews. A one-star review because "PRODUCT ARRIVED LATE AND BOX WAS DAMAGED BECAUSE UPS THREW IT OVER MY FENCE!!!" is a totally useless review and doesn't help anyone, except maybe letting the reviewer vent their anger.

Product reviews are not the place for this kind of review, unless the fault is clearly on the manufacturer themselves, or the manufacturer's customer service has been poor.

Interestingly though, Amazon seems to have addressed this problem in their Marketplace seller reviews. If you view the profile of a Marketplace seller you'll see "mini reviews" of the seller themselves. When people rate the seller poorly because of delivery problems, the review is greyed out and a note says "Amazon takes responsibility for the fulfilment of this order". It's been like that for years, and I don't know why they haven't extended the same system to product reviews.

TL;DR the reviewer shouldn't have written a product review about a bad fulfilment experience, but Amazon should improve their website to make the distinction clearer.

If the app can access it (offline, on your device), then what stops a developer from using tools to extract the token from the device, either from wherever it's stored in memory or using an interactive debugger to extract it as the app requests it?

It's funny, I've been a web developer for many, many years and I've yet to see any compelling argument for why React (or similar libraries) should even exist.

Every single time I look into them I just can't find a reason why I'd ever want to use them over regular HTML and JavaScript. This is especially true in recent years when so many convenience functions have been added to the languages which you'd only previously find in the likes of jQuery etc.

I've looked at framework comparison sites like ToDoMVC.com and the React code just looks so disgustingly over-engineered.

I just don't get it at all.

That's the only thing that makes you question React?

I just hate the fact that it requires JavaScript to render even the simplest of pages. I would be bold enough to state that most websites built using React have absolutely no need to be built with React, i.e. they should be using plain HTML/CSS and maybe a tiny bit of JS instead.

Instead we now have an entire ecosystem where JavaScript powers everything, even the rendering of the most basic static page. And have you seen the markup generated by React and its ilk? It's horrific and makes debugging/modifying pages using client-side tools (user scripts, accessibility tools etc.) much harder.

It's anathema to me. I hate it all.

I can't reproduce this at all.

Having briefly tried it I have to say it's not as clear or easy to use as ShareX (another open-source screenshot tool). The monochrome icons are really not intuitive or easy to discern at a glance.

Another commenter asks why it's not possible to trigger with the PrtScn key and I would also think that is an essential feature.

That's some nice casual racism you've got there. Actually it might be overt racism.

Honestly it's only frustrating if you approach it with an "all or nothing" mindset. Your site doesn't have to be all-singing, all-dancing. In fact it's probably better off being simple. To wit, you don't need async/AJAX stuff (unless you're making a chat app or something).

You definitely don't need a framework and you might actually be able to avoid using JavaScript altogether. I use jQuery only because I like the elegant/terse syntax and I struggle to think of any type of "ordinary" website where you'd need anything else.

If you approach frontend like "I need to use React/Angular" then yeah, you're gonna bash your head against a wall, because it's an entire new ecosystem and paradigm to learn.