Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bigbuppo's commentslogin

So the internet is newer than AI?

I think you want docker?

Back in the bad old days, people created websites because they had no choice in the matter. You simply had to do that to share anything with the rest of the world. Most of the tools we had back then still exist. The barrier to entry has never been lower, and those that are motivated to tinker do just that. But going through history... once mainstream blogging became a thing, and then social media conquered all, the motivation to share with others became monetized, as did the methods of sharing with others. AI isn't going to fix that. On the flip side, those same monsters that destroyed the world we knew through monetizing everything are the same ones spending trillions of dollars on AI.

> those same monsters that destroyed the world we knew through monetizing everything

That's why we get to use google for free.

I use a ton of excellent free software.


I feel like I should create a project called 'Verify Node.js v20.17.0+' that is totally not malware.

I would say they still do this... it's just called "fan art" now.

"you must block things in germany after it goes through a formal government process" versus "you must block things globally even for places not subject to italian law because an italian media company doesn't like it"

There's more than a subtle difference betweeen the two.


Back where I used to live there was a place called The Donut Shoppe and Bakery, and quickly expanded to ...and Full Breakfast, and a couple decades later ...Now Serving Hot Lunches, and then ...WE HAVE KOLACHES!. At some point, though, they dropped the ...Still Steve and Cindy's After All These Years because Steve and Cindy died.

But you gotta have that AI strategy or your good numbers won't go up. You can't be left behind in this business of business. I hear everyone is already moving on to post-agentic AI, whatever that means.

Probably because it has three embedded versions of libcef

Spot on! We tried to somehow reduce the libcef size in our B2B app - barely could do that. We had to employ some fancy compression techniques, but still this thing is huge!

It's because an inline element, like applying italics to text, are expected to behave a certain way. Additionally, it may be inheriting some properties from that cascade thing, and you really don't want it to behave like anything other than an inline element unless you explicity want it to not behave like that.

It's like wondering why this grape doesn't taste like fried catfish. They're both food. Why don't they taste the same?


What ever that "certain way" it's supposed to act, someone obviously wants it to act different if they set a height and width. Having to redefine the display time is a needless extra step that the user has to "just know" when the intention could easily be inferred.

Okay; would you like it to change to inline-block or block or grid?

Width and height are meaningless for inline elements, but automatically changing the display would be more confusing, not less.


> Width and height are meaningless for inline elements

Really not sure what you're trying to get at there, obviously any element that displays will have a width and height. Maybe you meant a user specified width/height, but the entire point of my post is an inline-block is an inline element with a specifiable width and height. And we've always had the IMG tag, which is also an inline element with a specifiable width and height. The obvious and intuitive choice would have been to not put artificial limits on inline elements.


It's not a limit. It's an expected behavior and you can still deviate from that anyway you wish.

You could even do something crazy like `* {display: block;}` if you really want, and then go from there. Nobody can stop you. The freedom is yours.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: