I think it's fair to say that Safari is no longer late.
That comes with 3 caveats.
1. Safari isn't updated independently of the OS, so users who don't update or whose iPhones don't get updates anymore will be forever stuck on old Safari versions.
2. Being timely on new features does little to alleviate the pain that comes from all the old messiness.
3. Different priorities driven by economic incentives of protecting their 30% cut. Fair enough. But shutting out alternative web engines on iOS is definitely a dick move.
I have to support iOS 16.
In terms of browser specific bugs that I have to deal with I'd say about 80-90% of what I encounter is Safari specific. Of that another 80% only affects iOS and of that like 2/3 are fixed in more current versions.
This seems analogous to the following.
A company asks users to fill out an online survey in exchange for participation in some raffle, except the company never pays out any prize.
As with the job application there was never a guaranteed reward, but it's still easy to see the damage. The company induced to you to provide them with an economically valuable asset (filled out survey/application) for which you expected a fair chance at a reward.
It seems plausible that you could claim damages at least up to the expected value.
>So never being offered a job because it doesn't exist doesn't lose you anything.
Ah well look, if the job posting was just to collect resumes with zero intention to actually hire, you did lose some things:
- actual time spent applying to a job that was never open
- emotional damage on focus to try to get this job
- loss of free market value of your data (company profited from this data, when you could have profited from it)
- damages for acquisition of your personal data under a fraudulent basis (when otherwise, maybe you did not want your data shared)
i went from being a "jj cli power user" to relying on jjui for all of my complex rebase needs so quickly that i now have to read the man page to recall basic commands
What is the context that the Go code adds here?
When File::create or os.Create fails the errors they return already contain the information what and why something failed.
So what information does "failed to create file: " add?
The error from Rust's File::create basically only contains the errno result. So it's eg. "permission denied" vs "failed to create file: permission denied".
Whatever context you deem appropriate at the time of writing that message. Don't overfocus on the example. It could be the request ID, the customer's name — anything that's relevant to that particular call.
Well if there is useful context Rust let's you add it.
You can easily wrap the io error in something specific to your application or just use anyhow with .context("...")?
which is what most people do in application code.
I have plenty of complaints about them.
The highly addictive gambling mechanics in their games,
the extortionate cut afforded them by their dominant market position
or the very rough UX in many parts of the Steam client (takes forever to startup, shows pop up ads on startup, is quite the resource hog, the store that is a pretty poorly optimized website and a lot of cruft in the less well trodden areas).
But they do make some very nice open source contributions.
If you're a dev and think their cut is too high, you can generate infinite keys for your game through Steam for free and sell them through third parties - Valve doesn't even police this.
The fact that people still tend to buy throught Steam shows their cut is worth it.
Steam is also a launcher and when I use it as a launcher I don't want to see ads for the store and burying a setting to turn if off in the settings is not sufficient.
At the very least let me turn it off on the pop up.
Describing those 'ads' as "abusive" is quite a stretch. It's like going to the store page itself and complaining they're telling you about products they sell.
Particularly when you can easily disable them. No other game client I know of offers that.
Advertising in general is absolutely abusive. I like to think of advertising as mind rape: it forcibly inserts brands and trademarks into your mind while you're trying to read or watch something.
On the other hand, I don't classify what Steam is doing as advertising. When I open the Steam store, it's because I want to see the games it has on sale. It's not advertising, it's the exact information I asked for. It would have been advertising had it kept spamming me with game deals while I'm watching a film or something.
Just because most advertising is abusive doesn't mean that all of it is. The popups that Steam shows when you open it are definitely still advertising, as are the recommendations for other games and things like that.
Ironically, this is exactly the reason why most other ad networks go to such lengths to track you, because they think they want to show you ads you'd find relevant and thus worthwhile to click on.
Unfortunately, the way the ad networks go about doing this means that they're actually incentivising making money by any means necessary over actually showing relevant ads, so you get ads that are psychologically abusive, full-screen ads that pop up in the middle of a game, ad networks selling off the data they have on you, etc.
That is why I will permanently have an adblocker - since this is how things work now - but why I don't care nearly as strongly about the Steam ads.
We don't disagree. It's just that I have a funny definition of advertising. It's more narrow than what people usually mean. Basically, if I asked for it, then it's information, not advertising.
For example:
> as are the recommendations for other games and things like that
I asked for this when I opened the Steam store. It's not advertising, it's just the exact information I wanted. I went to the market to see products, and they showed me products.
If they start bringing the products to my home by plastering ads on billboards all over the place then it's advertising and abusive.
> That is why I will permanently have an adblocker
They are also surprisingly effective because they often show things that I might actually buy (especially when it's on sale, which is precisely when they show ads for it).
No, that's not an excuse because Steam is also a launcher to play your games. If the store was completely separate then sure it would be OK to promote games being sold in the store there.
What are you on about? The steam store is pretty much always fast, efficient, and has lots of little touches that increase information density. It is one of the last remnants of the web from the good old days.
The steam store used to burn CPU on Windows until at least up to 2017 (on fresh install it would a strong PC stutter on startup). It tries to kill your DNS resolver on linux when downloading games (~20 requests/sec when) which actually decreases your download speed by a bunch. This bug has been documented in 2014, and was still present last time I had to debug this a year or two ago.
I measured an LCP or 3.5s + significant layout shift.
The images are poorly optimized jpegs, instead of WEBP/AVIF.
The start page takes a cool 6MB.
A games page clocks in at around 12MB before the video starts loading including a whopping 4MB JS.
None of the links appear to utilize preloading and it's and old school multi page app, so navigation takes a long time.
I don't have a way to measure it, but subjectively it performs worse in the Steam client than in a browser.
> I hear the complaints from the tech giants already: "But we bought too many GPUs! We spent billions on infrastructure! They have to be put to work!"
> Not my problem.
I don't know about the author specifically, but the bubble popping is a very bad thing for many people.
People keep saying that this bubble isn't so bad because it's concentrated on the balance sheet of very deep pocketed tech companies who can survive the crash.
I think that is basically true, but a lot is riding on the stock valuations of these big tech companies and lots of bad stuff will happen when these crash.
It's obviously bad for the people holding these stocks, but I these tech stocks are so big that there is a real risk of widespread contagion.
The only thing worse than popping the AI bubble is trying to inflate it even larger with a government bailout. The longer the government tries to protect the bubble, the more extreme and destructive the level of capital misallocation is going to become. They should have popped it years ago before we were trying to build nuclear reactors to keep our internet chatbots from taking down the power grid.
The idea is pretty cool, but it doesn't work super well.
1. I imagine most major news outlets don't have RSS feeds these days.
2. A lot of stuff originates from news agencies, so they don't spread from website to website, but radiate out from the agency.
3. Most of the included sources are pretty small. To draw meaningful conclusions we would need infos like popularity, political leaning, nation of origin, etc.
4. The similarity check doesn't appear to do translation. So when news spreads from one country to another we loose the thread.
Yes. For example, this story about Ukraine [1] is credited to WNYT as first, but the story itself credits the Associated Press.
This problem is worth solving, because it's something search engines should be doing.
yea, what im currently doing is pretty simple check on published at date from the rss feed (with some small validation checks)... but its causing issues bc it can be wrong and mess up everything...
Treating the Associated Press as a special case might be worthwhile. Its stories will appear in hundreds of places, some with a little alteration and some fully intact.
Yea not all major have rss feeds, but it seems like the majority still do.
No translation yet.
I think the biggest problem is im relying on published date from the news source itself too much and its wrong sometimes... not super often, but if 1 out of 100 sources get its wrong then it can steal credit for being source article when its not.
Also, not all information spreads through public channels, and might not even be/become publicly known. But that doesn't mean news refraction based on textual similarity isn't worthwhile to pursue, as it can reveal a lot about the self-organising principles by which the media operate.
>the similarity check doesn't appear to do translation
This surprises me. The system is based on embeddings. AFAIK embeddings cluster the same concept in different languages in roughly the same place? Maybe it depends on the model (or maybe it's not exact and the clustering cutoff loses it).
I'm basically throwing away non english articles for now... I'll pry get them in later, but I want to get english right first before trying to move to other languages...
The embeddings themselves will (pry) cluster ok in different languages (but I have not tested this yet)
1. Safari isn't updated independently of the OS, so users who don't update or whose iPhones don't get updates anymore will be forever stuck on old Safari versions.
2. Being timely on new features does little to alleviate the pain that comes from all the old messiness.
3. Different priorities driven by economic incentives of protecting their 30% cut. Fair enough. But shutting out alternative web engines on iOS is definitely a dick move.
reply