> you should probably prefer the first definition ("go around, past the edge of") instead of the fourth definition, as you've done here. That was the third def

> you should probably prefer the first definition ("go around, past the edge of") instead of the fourth definition, as you've done here. That was the third definition. The first definition was "a woman's outer garment fastened around the waist and hanging down around the legs." /snark > we should look more at end-user satisfaction and less at often pedantic technical analyses of solutions. They aren't orthogonal. User satisfaction comes from a smooth experience. Regardless of how shiny something is, if it slows down the rest of the system (or is itself laggy) users will notice. I choose to run foobar instead of other music players because it's small and fast. > are we further limiting a great web UX to those with the money to afford the latest laptops? This is what infuriates me. People have been talking about how the "free lunch" is over [1] since 2009. About how CPUs have stopped getting faster, and how we should make the best out of the current hardware by learning to paralelize. Yet javascript is the most popular language and it's fundamentally single threaded. High quality software is not about having "a great web UX". VLC doesn't have it (great web UX). Blender doesn't have it. Intellij IDEA doesn't have it. And they're not only extremely complex and efficient softwares, they also have great UIs. Our computers are extremly powerful. The fact that someone would wonder if they're not enough to run pretty clipboard managers and fancy text editors is making me cringe. [1] http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm http://www.gotw.ca/publications/concurrency-ddj.htm