> Offtopic to politics, but browsers these days support arbitrary text anchors.
Find this extremely annoying, especially in search results: I want to start at the beginning of the article/post, and not some random place in the middle—which is where the highlighted snippet in the search results are from, but not helpful for learning the larger context.
It also tends to mess up URLS that you may want to copy-paste as it has that text parameter garbage at the end (often with a sizeable amount of text that needs to be removed).
Agreed. I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I think this is an anti-feature. In addition to your good points, it's also very fragile as a small change in the text of the page can break the link. It also leads to monstrous URLs that are quite hard to read for people who don't know about this feature.
It's a great way to link to the source of a verbatim quote, though. It goes straight to the relevant context, and breaks only if the source of the quote itself is somehow changed, making the new inconsistency clear.
I've seen it used countless times before, but I thought it was something somehow being injected into the page by a search engine (especially when it comes from custom site searches on forums), rather than a browser feature.
I did something with JSON back before there was reasonable native support - it's certainly not robust, but it handled a few syntax variants for a use case where we had an extra attribute column that serialized JSON, and wanted to surface one of the fields as a proper column on the table.
Also: When served from a CDN like your link above, popular CSS like Bootstrap had a decent chance of _already_ being in your browser's cache, so despite downloading more initially you'd come across sites using the same version that meant _no_ delay downloading CSS for it.
> Most importantly: cached content is no longer shared between domains. This is known as cache partitioning and has been the default in Chrome since October 2020 (v86), Firefox since January 2021 (v85), and Safari since 2013 (v6.1). That means if a visitor visits site A and site B, and both of them load https://public-cdn.example/my-script.js, the script will be loaded from scratch both times.
It was (and still is) never a good idea to hotlink to an external dependency.
Most developers know better than to hotlink to an image because it might one day return a completely different image (and potentially an unsavory one) yet they casually use external code dependencies.
It is also why the Dependabot(sp?) that has become so popular among devs makes me nervous. Something automatically updating your dependencies is a recipe for disaster.
I was comparing notes with a new coworker the other week - I've got an M1 pro, he's got an M3. Running an individual test for a feature we were working on (in Rails) lines up with the 25-30% numbers quoted up thread a bit, but that's the difference between my machine taking 40sec or so vs his taking 30 or less.
It's noticeable when you've got it to compare against, and I'm looking forward to work's hardware refresh cycle bumping me to M4 next year, but I still don't think I'd upgrade if it were a personal machine (and if I can get a decent discount to buy out the depreciated M1 for personal use I'm planning on that rather than looking at anything new).
That's my take as well. I used an M1 and an M3 for the same work, the M3 was definitely faster but the M1 wasn't bad. Both were substantially better than the Intel Macs I was using before (for the same tasks as well). Times cut from 5-10 minutes down to 1-2 minutes on the M1, and another 10-30 seconds shaved off with the M3. So faster, but not as game changing as the M1 itself.
The one thing I do like with the M3 vs M1 is when I had to, for reasons, run an x64 VM. I felt it was barely usable on the M1, but it was tolerable on the M3. The performance on the M3 of an x64 VM was close to the old Intel Macs I'd ditched, which were acceptable but hardly great. The M1 running a VM felt like a time warp back to my college days in the early '00s.
Costco in the US only accepts Visa. I have a membership, and it's an annoyance because all of my credit cards are Mastercard or Discover, so I have to use my Visa debit card.
Bank debit cards in the US all also use Visa or Mastercard networks.
Interesting. In EU, I never saw a business accepting only Visa but not MC or vice versa.
The only two semi-exceptions:
- during a MC-sponsored event, you had extra fast lanes when paying with MC (Roland Garros in Paris)
- Ryanair (low-cost airline) would accept free payments only with some niche cards (Visa Electron, Mastercard prepaid) and charge like 10€ extra per flight segment for any other card, until I think EU forbid it.
Costco is membership-only, so everybody shopping there is strongly incentivized to do so bearing the payment methods they accept.
A random corner store or online retailer does not have that luxury; they have to accept whatever their prospective customers have on them (and to a lesser extent prefer, if they have multiple brands' cards).
In part this is because of the existence of Interac though. If Interac didn't exist it's possible they would feel they need to use VISA to not turn away too much membership. Having debit as a fallback means they can partner with whomever gives them favourable terms. I doubt Costco is paying Mastercard a % of the transaction the way most other retailers are.
Despite it existing since the 80s, there's been constant pressure / lobbying to get rid of it.[1]
Costco in the US doesn't accept Discover but does accept Visa. Heck, they even offer a Visa credit card which stands in as your official membership card.
Maybe, "the time when expected value is the lowest"?
The BC 6/49 lottery (6 balls 1-49, one bonus ball) for example has 53% of the common "prize pool" split amongst all 4-ball matchers, so if you're not hitting the jackpot you get less cash out of a high-demand drawing.
And given the prize pool is something like 18% of net receipts... yeah EV is still well in the negatives.
Yeah, they've got an SOS button on the back that'll (silently) make your friends' devices blink to say "come find me." Not sure how noticeable it would be on the dance floor without a noise or vibrate, though.
The worst was King's Quest V, which you could play for 3-4 hours and soft lock yourself by deciding to go east into the mountains before you had done _everything_ possible in town and west in the desert. It didn't warn you you couldn't return, and if you didn't have an extra save it was back to the beginning.
Soft lock failure states are incredibly bad design... Instant deaths well, those can be acceptable with decent save system. But even Sierra in some cases managed to nearly entirely avoid soft lock failures... So leaving them in is well only bad work.
docs: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/URI/Fragment/Te...
your link: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...