eviks
eviks on Hacker News
but still unreasonable. In the presence of issues for each of the two options, you pick the correct one unless you have rather strong reasons, which they don't:
> U+2800 is clearly used as a symbol, to indicate the presence of a space when describing a Braille sequence corresponding to a symbol or punctuation, similar to the use of ␣
Why is that? Have you perhaps forgotten to add "␣" equivalent for Braille? So maybe do that instead so people can us a mark to mark something?
> Especially in cases where it is used in a trailing position, as in the [UNE13] example, it is
clear that it would be inappropriate for this symbol to disappear
Nothing disappears in the cited example, the line is very short , how is it possible to reject a fix when you can't even find an example of that fix breaking someone?
> last changed in
and this approach is why we can't have nice things and generations of computer users continue to suffer due to some dumb oversight decades ago. And it's not like we get a payoff of great stability, not, that standard is uber complicated and changes all the time
> We define some bar
Go on - define a bar here.
> just that it needs to exceed a threshold
Same. Be specific.
Do you have any examples illustrating how it's better?
But an evil midllman will relatively easily be able to give you non-free version, so that feeling should be fleeting
That would also be trivial for a syntax-tree-based tool, right?
Yes, but also wrong. Normalization like the one mentioned in the post is the mistake, not Unicode characters
That's new
> For example, U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE was originally classified as a space character (General_Category=Zs), but it was reclassified as a Format character (General_Category=Cf) to clearly distinguish it from space characters in its function as a format control for line breaking.
> some bugs you don't want to find
The key thing you forgot, which makes this approach non-sensible, is the omniscience, without which you have no clue whether your posture towards a new bug-finding tool is good or not, since you don't know whether it will mostly find those bugs that are not worth fixing and the time wasted on fixing them is detrimental.
Similarly, how is ignorance better than informed decision when ignorance also includes missing critical security bugs?
Why wouldn't their review system see a published extension and determine the very second it's published that it didn't match the results of a standard workflow?
It was safety-contrained from being able to realize its full potential.
What would be the careful way of installing the official extension?
That's literally impossible, with all the access to the frontier software development tools at their disposal they can ship features securely at 100x
> Points of correctness are useless without points of connection.
There are two points in a connection, and one way to sever it is to follow author's advice to "ignore them". Or you could try to learn and maybe even engage.
(also, the "non-coward" way would be to actually link to the comment so that we could try to understand how toxic / irrelevant expert peons are)
You forgot to exclude the "not usual" factors that allow monopolies to hold their position to rule Google out of the group.
For example, non-regulatory attempts at blocking of competitors, which Google does engage in due to their dominant position in mobile (of course, that's also just another better product)
How is this constructive when you're offering nothing to construct? Just saying not to be surprised.
Kid, to keep you safe I need to keep a secret. Mommy loves you, go back to sleep!
What % of all opinions of a given group are opinions about reliability, durability etc
What does it have over WT worth waiting for?
One relatively easy set of metrics - resource consumption driven by migration to resource hungrier stacks.
But in general sure, it's not like we have good databases that count and classify bugs and track their numbers and severity and determine causes so we can compare the dynamic
They don't say that because you didn't write the tests, AI did, so who knows what behaviors it thought of and wrote tests for. That's the reason these type of metrics are very bad, especially in this context when bad tests are easier to write
Give it a few centuries of evolution and maybe we'll get there
The alternative to ribbon is not menu+ quick access, it was easily customizable toolbars where you can simply drag and drop only the buttons you need in the toolbars you need at a fraction of screen space that the ribbon wastes. And no user is ever exposed to that XML garbage only a dev could love
No they don't, they appear every time you scroll even if you never use the bar. And flashing of ui elements is in many cases worse than wasting that space permanently.
It's a tragedy decades of UI research/design can't get any of the fundamental design elements right
Correct, but you don't need the full thick scrollbar for the indicator function, some apps use a much smaller dot/guide
How can it be related to perfection to permanently waste a strip of space you rarely (and in some apps never) use?
Is there a mouse module? Can you connect in a "staggered" manner rather than in a linear grid?
Constructive feedback would be pointing to specific issues and how to improve them, not just "no nonsense"
Are humans still involved in summarizing? Why is "What you need to know" missing the vote count even though the title is about votes?
What makes the core IDE so bad that it requires using all the new ones instead of improving/extending the core?