akersten

24 ms·

361.
by akersten 5y ago
PHP: On Error Resume Next, but webscale
362.
by akersten 5y ago
Anyone have an idea of which part of US Code would require this? I have a hard time imagining it's that prescriptive about font sizes (especially given that different fonts have different glyph sizes, DPI on monitors results in differe
363.
by akersten 5y ago
For the same reason we call it "accessible entrance" and not "government-mandated alternative door with ramp." Making the phrase more general is just good design.
364.
by akersten 5y ago
Oh the irony of this site itself having a "we use cookies, got it?" banner while lamenting this exact perceived lack of choice. I always laugh a little when I see those anyway, knowing that my browser's settings and privacy e
365.
by akersten 5y ago
Sure, any time: > text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent without loss of content or functionality. What does "without loss of content or functionality" mean? If the resized text flys off the side of
366.
by akersten 5y ago
All I can say is that I'm glad physical accessibility isn't codified by "I'll know it when I see it" standards. You kind of make my point though - sure, it's obvious when it's wrong. But it's not ob
367.
by akersten 5y ago
Not really, because we can all agree that the entrance must be at least 36 inches wide and at an angle of no more than 10 degrees (or whatever). Those are physical properties that can be measured. Versus web accessibility guidelines are a c
368.
by akersten 5y ago
Those distinctions aren't clear from the linked article. Do you have a source that Netflix doesn't have to caption their video productions but NBC does? Teacher's Prep sounds like an online-only course program. Why couldn&#x2
369.
by akersten 5y ago
> There’s no reason for any web developer to make an inaccessible order form in 2022. It’s a form. Well, that's OP's point - that's your opinion that it's easy. Maybe it's someone writing their own small busine
370.
Hubert Blaine Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorff(en.wikipedia.org)
2 points by akersten 5y ago|0 comments
371.
by akersten 5y ago
Does this same logic apply to something like Visa concierge service (or other procurement company), where they show you the brand item and store logo from where it comes, and then go buy it for you? Why can they do that, but not Google?
372.
by akersten 5y ago
More restaurants to the database but that doesn't mean those restaurants are paying the fee. Likely loss leaders for GrubHub. The listing fee mentioned in this Ars article says it is only if you have a relationship, which makes sense.
373.
by akersten 5y ago
To be charged a 30% fee, is part of the business agreement that the restaurant voluntarily entered with that food delivery company though?? I'm gonna leave this thread now, complaining about this is just nuts...
374.
by akersten 5y ago
> No one's asserting they're swapping out the food. With the amount of vitriol in this thread one wouldn't have been blamed for thinking they were, is my point. We call ourselves Hackers and we're mad about this?
375.
by akersten 5y ago
At the end of the day do these restaurants not cook and sell the food, or is Google running a secret shadow kitchen and swapping out the cuisine too? If you put a service on the Internet (restaurant website, or making order pickup available
376.
by akersten 5y ago
Thank goodness. I was genuinely worried they'd make Pokemon card booster packs illegal next. Let kids live a little and learn the perils of gambling play money early. They can safely learn the disappointment of throwing 20 bucks into a
377.
by akersten 5y ago
As my mentor once told me, it's very simple. "Bad code is code you write, and good code is code I write..."
378.
by akersten 5y ago
You don't even need different release channels. Firefox is the original browser with Profiles. about:profiles Now all it needs is a nicer UI to switch them.
379.
by akersten 5y ago
I don't think precedent has been established here by the cake shop case. The Supreme Court has already turned away cases that it thought were similar to it: > Another predominate case involving anti-discrimination laws and religious
380.
by akersten 5y ago
> Substitute "same-sex couple" with "conservatives" and you have Facebook right now. One is a protected class, and the other isn't. It really is that simple. > So, just to be clear: You're saying that bus
381.
by akersten 5y ago
> She is “willing to work with all people regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” her lawyers told the court. “But she cannot create websites that promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone
382.
by akersten 5y ago
The certbot let's encrypt agent is unfortunately stuck in a Snap package, at least last I tried setting it up. Always feels like Snap has been pushed by some invisible proprietary influence, not organic growth due to it being a good id
383.
by akersten 5y ago
It's really cool! one small request: Can you switch the colors for "guessed, not in word" and "not guessed yet" letters on the keyboard? It's opposite from the original and makes it confusing.
384.
by akersten 5y ago
Phew, it's just a sponsored Firefox theme. I was so worried when I saw the headline that they were doing something like Proprietary Disney+ HDR...
385.
by akersten 5y ago
No, no, of course you don't have to check every contract you engage with. At least, not with the help of my conveniently-IPO'ing DAO wETH unwrapper leaser startup. We'll take care of the heavy lifting, you sit back, relax, an
386.
by akersten 5y ago
> What alternative would you propose? How about not working with the fox on the least invasive way to eat my fellow hens?
387.
by akersten 5y ago
> they would have shipped an ad blocking and anti-tracking tech in their browser by default. In theory they do - the Tracking Protection thingy is on by default last I checked. I guess dirty money's hard to resist.
388.
by akersten 5y ago
I don't think it's that black and white. Whatever happened to "do nothing" and leave things as they are? We don't need a special FLoC 2.0, just leave the dang web as it is, some people will block ads and some won&#x
389.
by akersten 5y ago
Nonsense, "you must be at least 13 years old to use this service" has been standard T&C since time immemorial. It is not a basic piece of information either, it's a big piece of identity theft. So not that I'd even
390.
by akersten 5y ago
> People complaining about airtags being nerfed were misusing them in the first place I sense the "you're holding it wrong" philosophy never really changed at Apple.

More ›