I think your maximalist conclusion of "drugs should be legalized" might have some second-order effects that might be net worse for society, though. Addiction, misuse, MRSA, overdoses, etc.

https://tonsky.me/blog/every-frame-perfect/toolbar@2x.mp4, for example

I don't think I would have to rescan the entire page to figure out where things were afterwards. Everything's shifted to the right, just like when I open my browser bookmarks.

At the same time, why does everything need motion? My understanding is that motion should be used if an action subtly changes the UI in a region that's different from where the action was triggered (e.g. toasts)

I think many of these transitions are unnecessary and would feel just as good if they snapped immediately with instantaneous reflow.

From the outside view, I still wouldn't make any bets with 100% certainty about the future of anything to do with computers.

If you grant that there is some chance that the trends of programming models' capabilities will continue for another few years, then there is some chance that software and its bottlenecks will be completely transformed. A rapidly overhauled accessibility tree for linux? A good-enough computer use model that doesn't require accessibility trees at all? A world of bespoke, personalized operating systems? All of these things (and many more) seem like outcomes with non-zero probabilities.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48294601

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

> [absorb] splits changes in the source revision and moves each change to the closest mutable ancestor where the corresponding lines were modified last. If the destination revision cannot be determined unambiguously, the change will be left in the source revision.

I use absorb fairly often, fwiw. It's great for when I want to make a patch to a commit that will easily absorb into its right place. And I also, sometimes, prefer the more intentional approach where I decide exactly where each hunk will go.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48259861

Points: 178

# Comments: 179

I'm just compulsive in pointing out trade-offs, and this blog post (understandably) doesn't have an interview with the civil servant on the other side presenting their perspective, so I wanted to raise the question here in case someone knew how it worked.

Presumably there is an intelligent process that leads to this. What alternative is there?

Spraypainting the pothole distorts the triage process and makes a pothole jump the queue, putting it ahead of more severe or older issues than it otherwise would have been.

It might not be zero sum, if it causes the agency to act with more haste to avoid embarrassment, but it seems like it could be close? Plus it probably takes more resources to clean up the spraypaint afterwards.

Most road maintenance crews probably aren't sitting around with abundant materials and machinery neglecting their duties, so I guess I just have some questions about what the real cost of this tactic is. What's giving.

There's also a few on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_flash_unsorted?t...

(In case the OP also made you think of Teen Titans Battle Blitz for the first time in 20 years)

On finnicky engines, I think if I were to seriously implement this for a project that needed to support arbitrary images, I'd do the dithering server side (assuming it's possible to develop some heuristics to select the correct transformation based on image type (text, low contrast, blurry, etc)), serve those to users, and allow them to customize the colouring filters. That way the dithering looks as good as it can per image, but it can then still be stylized to a user's preferences.

This technique does not do any file compression as it's a transformation applied to the image in the browser (though screenshots of the output would be smaller than the source)

For a post on CSS-based noise dithering that I actually polished, there's also https://ikesau.co/blog/making-a-grainy-spotlight-effect-with...

I'm very much sympathetic to the post's argument, but I think it should be acknowledged that this kind of claim has an implicit "(for now)" at the end.

The legal system doesn't have good mechanisms for dealing with problems that it hasn't needed to deal with yet, but if most people moved to encrypted & decentralized protocols for communication, it doesn't follow that laws couldn't be amended to give governments powers to legislate or police it at scale if deemed necessary by some sufficiently powerful group (an autocracy, a voting bloc, a national security service, etc)

So I guess the other implicit piece is that one hopes the technological change comes with cultural change to our political expectations - once people get used to privacy and autonomy, they resist efforts to erode those rights again.

Best of luck to everyone advocating for this! Really hoping to see a lot of thriving communities post-Discord in the coming years.

This seems entirely reasonable to me, and I'm grateful that a group like this exists.

But I'm a YIMBY, so of course. If lobbyists were influencing my municipality from afar on the basis of laws that I disagreed with, I can imagine feeling frustrated, conspiratorial, or disenfranchised.

Maintaining a consistent commitment to liberal democracy, the legal system and due process is one of life's great challenges!