troupo

27 ms·

661.
by troupo 7mo ago
> Yes. > If your app doesn't work for the wealthiest 50% of users, why go that route? Why doesn't business hire two teams? One for the amazing native-like PWA, and one for iOS? > Making a desktop web app work on mobile,
662.
by troupo 7mo ago
> Not a non-sequitor. Ah yes. Me: China is building a lot of nuclear. You: "Well you better go tell the Chinese that they should slow down on wind and solar, clearly they are misinformed about how to run their grid." What do yo
663.
by troupo 7mo ago
> That's just your skewed take. When you deliberately ignore what Google is doing, every view that is not praising Google's take over of the web is skewed. > So what, bugs can be fixed. No. Not on the web they can't. On
664.
by troupo 7mo ago
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem to be right. They have a process: Yes, they do. It's their process, and their timelines. Many features on the page we're discussing are literally "drew on a napkin, not part
665.
by troupo 7mo ago
> First of all, features can be a standard without (full) FF and/or Safari support. No. No they can't. A feature that is shipped in a single browser is just that: that browser's non-interoperable feature. We literally live
666.
by troupo 7mo ago
It's called iOS 404, not "FF" or "Chrome" and pushes the narrative that iOS is bad, and missing features. There are 34 features listed (IIRC it did contain a bunch of Chrome-only crap once upon the time, hence my
667.
by troupo 7mo ago
> If a web app doesn't work on iOS, a business builds a native app instead. iOS is too important. So that fantastic native-like PWA never gets built in the first place. So, instead of hiring a team to build an amazing PWA for Androi
668.
by troupo 7mo ago
> A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: 1. Google often doesn't bother even
669.
by troupo 7mo ago
> No, because any browser can decide to ship a feature that it thinks is worthwhile. Yes, yes they can. They don't get to call it standard or essential. And Chrome-shilling sites like the pwa.gripe and a slew of others don't ge
670.
by troupo 7mo ago
I keep asking: Android doesn't have all these perceived limitations. Where are all the amazing native-like PWAs on Android?
671.
by troupo 7mo ago
Note how it doesn't list which of these are Chrome-only non-standard APIs that Firefox doesn't support either. Oh wait. You don't care about small details like that. None of these Chrome shilling websites do.
672.
by troupo 7mo ago
> the open webm Sonehow you seem to confuse open web with Chrome-only non-standard APIs
673.
by troupo 7mo ago
Imagine if these countless of "Safari bad" sites didn't shill for Chrome by pretending that Chrome-only APIs are essential and standard web apis.
674.
by troupo 7mo ago
Most apps at the time managed that quite successfully. IIRC Adobe Photoshop was an MFC app. There was no other API but Win32 API.
675.
by troupo 7mo ago
> How does nuclear, an energy source known for needing to run at a very high capacity factor (i.e at max capacity) help with energy spikes? It's one of the fastest load-following power sources we have. I think only gas power station
676.
by troupo 7mo ago
If you read beyond just the headline, you can see a description of the problem with a bunch of links in literally the first paragraph of the article.
677.
by troupo 7mo ago
In article we discuss has a link to this article: https://blog.jim-nielsen.com/2025/icons-in-menus/ Which has a good paragraph with an example: --- start quote --- Get a bunch of people in a room, show them menus
678.
by troupo 7mo ago
Why would they backtrack? Alan Dye wasn't the only person at Apple pushing this with God-like powers overriding everyone's decisions. [1] New head of design, surprise surprise: Apple's new software design chief, Steve Lemay,
679.
by troupo 7mo ago
I've had carrots (and fruit and hard snscks) since I don't remember when. My teeth have been crooked since forever. So?
680.
by troupo 7mo ago
> The first thing Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was repelling the law protecting Russian language You mean bullshit law that Yanukovich passed for populist reasons. A law that had no meaning or force. Read Ukranian Constitution
681.
by troupo 7mo ago
So: 1. Ukraine had a very strong ipposition to joining NATO prior to 2014. And according to Putin himself, other countries (Ukraine, Sweden, Finland etc.) joining NATO is those countries' own decision and he's okay with it. If he
682.
by troupo 7mo ago
Here's comparison with Albarth https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/abarth-500-2016-3-d... Here's Audi A1 (I used to drive this one, including taking another person and a kid on a ski trip): ht
683.
by troupo 7mo ago
"almost never" for 8 billion people is "hundreds of millions of people need this". E.g. I do
684.
by troupo 7mo ago
> The actual lesson here is that beyond a small reserve, the case for nuclear is non existent Except you know, minor things like base load, energy spikes etc.
685.
by troupo 7mo ago
Yes, yes you do. If there's no legally binding assurance, why are you holding on to it as if it was? While completely ignoring actual legally binding assurances like "Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukra
686.
by troupo 7mo ago
> though it was not a legally binding assurance Oh no, really? > The polls consistently showed that, but it hadn't stopped Yuschenko from submitting the request. Oh no, so you are hellbent on clearly ignoring the opposition to th
687.
by troupo 7mo ago
Here's a helpful comparison https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/opel-astra-1998-cou...
688.
by troupo 7mo ago
> That is who is basically the dictator of Europe Tell me how your opinion can be dismissed in its entirety without telling me
689.
by troupo 7mo ago
Rant: "to speak, write or shout in a loud, uncontrolled, or angry way, often saying confused or silly things" Rant: "a long, angry speech or piece of writing : TIRADE; a bombastic extravagant speech" Which your rant is.
690.
by troupo 7mo ago
> He lied.[0] No one wants to look like a fool. Your oft-cited link doesn't support the "100% NATO said they wouldn't expand" and it's a verbal statement that wasn't even ratified anywhere. Unlike, you kno

More ›