It's not so complicated that you assume you need to run out at this very moment to find the nearest elevator just to prove a point. That's moronic.

> There are escalators where it's too narrow to pass

So you see what everybody else is doing and do that. Presumably, if it's that narrow, everybody's just standing in the centre.

> The same goes for escalators that are so long that nobody's walking up them to accelerate their progress

The fact the staircase is so long is exactly why people would be walking up an escalator, to save the most time.

> or when nobody is around

Then it clearly doesn't matter.

> or when it's so crowded nobody's able to pass anyway

If everybody's on one side, it's not too crowded.

> it doesn't apply in places where people aren't going to be in a big hurry

Alright, that's fine for where you are familiar. It won't take long at all to notice that's not the case in Japan, there are enough elevators all around the place.

> Manners are really complicated

If you're completely unobservant yet somehow think you need to be on edge at all times, which seems contradictory, I'm sure it is.

Or if you think that they're inflexible edicts without nuance. They're manners, not morals.

I think this way of thinking, being obtuse on purpose to try to win an internet argument (without a prize, no less), is the more unnecessary thing. What point does that argumentation try to prove other than that a hypothetical version of you, as opposed to most humans who live in large cities, are an inflexible idiot?

Most people are not 100% unaware of the context in which they are engaging. We know to apply escalator rules when we're at an escalator. We know to put things in bins when we have things to put in bins. What we don't know, we can learn through observation, reading the atmosphere, and making at least a minimal effort not to showboat our individualism and, apparently, any obtuse refusal to engage with our context.

(By the way, I don't actually think you are an inflexible idiot.)

Not so much the game itself so much as the excuse for the masses to buy a console for a game even grandpa can play.

Right!? Who's out there going "oh no, translucent is too translucent; opaque is too opaque; but now that I can have 72.93% glass, my life is complete"?

10.27?

But that means there were two each of 10.11, 10.12, 10.13, 10.14, and 10.15 :-)

I agree that I'm not sure what value I'd see, as an employer, in a "visual designer" whose CV rips off something else's visual design. Much of the design doesn't belong to you (never mind the ROMs used in the Game Boy emulator) so my alarm bells about how much you respect IP would be going off ("this guy's gonna get us sued").

Now, on the other hand, if this were a display of some HTML, CSS, and JavaScript skills, I'd understand more, but then the title OP has given themselves seems off.

Which is not natural. The manipulation of a trackpad matches the manipulation of a document, natural.

There's no real world concept of a 'viewport' that makes sense with documents other than our own eyes; we don't move our eyes with our hands, unnatural.