Mastodon Feed: Posts

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
domingo@mastodon.cloud ("Domingo Flores 🏳️‍🌈") wrote:

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
dynarski ("Prof Dynarski") wrote:

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
Yoshi@toot.community ("Yoshimatsu ✅") wrote:

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
mmasnick ("Mike Masnick ✅") wrote:

Reblogged by jeffsonstein ("Jeff Sonstein"):
Claudina@det.social wrote:

Attachments:

• e037e1bd1244ccc5.jpg (remote)

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Until Apple steals the essential design for FTL travel and popularises it under the brand "iCloud", there's really no way to square the circle but to agree that competition is good, actually, and that Apple is in the wrong.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Look, I don't relish calling Apple partisans dim, but the difference between "I like Safari" and "Apple shouldn't allow competition because I like Safari" is, you know, light years across?

We call this "the Gruber Gap".

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

As an Xoogler that left with *many* deep concerns about how the org (doesn't) support(s) the web, take it from me that performative hand-wringing about Apple being finally forced into allowing true browser choice is, to use the vernacular, absolute horse hockey:

https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-browser-engine-choice/

Reblogged by slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell"):
jaffathecake ("Jake Archibald") wrote:

lloydmeta ("Lloyd") wrote:

At Tokyo Skytree. Touristing in my own city.

Attachments:

• 3259d38e9c341a76.png
• c3e4c27845b14f04.png
• 03b68197d25a4373.png
• 5e1772eeb2346530.png

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

The horror of what Aeron is doing to birdsite is multiplied every time you put the "I'm a big-boy engineer" hat on. You realise, immediately, that he's not.

Maybe never was?

Certainly is setting that reputation alight in real time.

Amazing.

Reblogged by xor@tech.intersects.art ("Parker Higgins"):
rdmond ("Sean Redmond") wrote:

Reblogged by xor@tech.intersects.art ("Parker Higgins"):
effy@effy.space ("Effy Elden") wrote:

Attachments:

• An auto-generated image that will show the name of the fediverse instance the user is on, and a randomly assigned gender from the options presented at https://genders.wtf. (remote)

Reblogged by technomancy@icosahedron.website ("tech? no! man, see..."):
technomancy@icosahedron.website ("tech? no! man, see...") wrote:

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

The top-2 best reason to prefer less client-side code is that reasoning about the behaviour of JS/etc. *in context* is WILDLY complex vs life w/ just C++, A/V, and crappy OSes

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

The top-2 best reason to prefer less client-side code is that reasoning about the behaviour of JS/etc. *in context* is WILDLY more.complex than life w/ just A/V+crappy OSes

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

So does SDNY send Junior Associates to read PRWire for annoucements of Mazars booking new business, or....?

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

Here's a somewhat less direct series on the same set of popular confusions:

https://infrequently.org/series/effective-standards-work/

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

No offense to my friends that work in voluntary internet standards, but if you think:

"aha! global megacorp has agreed to send one engineer to Working Group X in Standards Forum Y, now I have them in my trap!", understand that:

• you cannot make them do anything particular or specific
• you can't even prevent them from doing particular and specific things
• they're not in your trap, you're in theirs

Voluntary standards are what they say on the tin. Get a grip.

Reblogged by lloydmeta ("Lloyd"):
seanmonstar@masto.ai ("Sean McArthur :rust:") wrote:

Reblogged by lloydmeta ("Lloyd"):
pulsation@mamot.fr wrote:

rmrenner ("The Old Gay Gristle Fest") wrote:

the trailer for Greta Gerwig's Barbie was incredible

pzmyers@octodon.social ("pzmyers 🦑") wrote:

None of the British royals are at all interesting -- they're boring provincial dullards with piles and piles of money.

Discuss.

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
mcc wrote:

Attachments:

• NASA promo photograph of Karen Nyberg

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
jensimmons@front-end.social ("Jen Simmons") wrote:

Attachments:

• screenshot of the article, showing Unnested CSS, Option 5, Option 4, and Option 3. Go to the article for all the text & code. (remote)

Reblogged by lloydmeta ("Lloyd"):
mcnees ("Robert McNees") wrote:

Attachments:

• A student has cut a piece of paper in half then taped the ends together with a twist, forming a Mobius band that has only one side but as much area as both sides of a piece of paper. There are various Electrodynamics formulas and results written all over the sheet.

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

In 2100, will there be more or less countries than today?

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

Will the majority of people still work for money in 2100?

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

Will money and bank accounts (as we have them today) still exist in 2100?

Reblogged by kornel ("Kornel"):
openculture@toot.community ("Open Culture (Official)") wrote:

Attachments:

• f6c2aa746b8ee260.jpeg (remote)