That would actually fix some ugly CSS I have. The demo works. Neat.
Except... the demo doesn't use either the old syntax or the new syntax. The browser support is wrong (Firefox doesn't support it, the site says Firefox 16+; it says Chrome 43+ but in reality it's much newer: Chrome 148+). It says "Since 2018" but the spec was introduced in 2024.
So maybe an interesting overview of things that might be available or might not, but the filtering and data on the site doesn't seem to be useful.
Firefox is pretty irrelevant nowadays. They've dragged their feet for years when it comes to implementing new stuff, and now web devs don't even bother checking Firefox. Because devs know it won't work on ancient browsers, no need to confirm.
My personal trigger events were when Firefox didn't optimize DataView for the longest time, initially refused to implement import maps, and couldn't get WebGPU support done. At that point I lost interest in supporting it.
"widely available" has a precise meaning that includes Firefox (both desktop and Android). it might be irrelevant for some, but let's not twist industry definitions
This website says certain features work on firefox. But they don't. You can disregard firefox if you like. But if this "Modern CSS Code Snippets" website explicitly tells me their snippets work in firefox, I expect the snippets to work in firefox. Many of them do not.
again, "widely available" should not be intended in the general sense but as a much more precise industry term. "Baseline widely available" is defined[1] as a feature which has been available on all the core browsers (Chrome desktop and Android, Edge, Firefox desktop and Android, Safari on Mac and iOS) for two and a half years
I don't really care about someones phony definition of widely available. If it runs on 90% of user's browsers, it's widely available. I'll gladly make a web page that puts this definition online so that you can also reference it in discussions, if you want.
It's 2026, the most useful stuff was implemented over a decade ago. Stop trying to make the web platform do everything when it wasn't designed for that.
It doesn't matter what it was designed for 30 years ago. Computers also weren't designed to be put in your pocket, yet here we are. Things evolve, and browsers that do not keep up will eventually stop being used.
Firefox could (should?) be better in several aspects but it seems excessive to say it is pretty irrelevant.
It has 4.5% market share in Europe, 9% in Germany (statcounter numbers).
It is the browser that got the Google Labs folks to write a Rust jxl decoder for it, and now, thanks in part to that, Chrome is re-adding support for jxl.
You can be unhappy with Firefox (I often am myself), and Firefox HAS lost relevance, but can you really say it has become pretty irrelevant?
Also one of the features that I want -- scrollbar-gutter: stable -- is shown everywhere as being stable for many Safari versions, but when I try it it just didn't work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
... also some parts are Apache, and the wording around the AGPL bit is very weird:
> ... licensed to use source code to create compiled versions ...
Why's it calling out compiling specifically? Are they trying to imply you can't modify/distribute/etc the source? Presumably that would be a "further restriction" per the AGPL and hence ignorable, but it's sloppy at best and misleading at worse, which isn't great for a license document...
The entire "Gradual recovery" part of the post makes absolutely no sense, and is presumably an LLM fabrication. That's just... not how anything works. And deploying three different weird little mitigations flies in the face of the earlier "We couldn't just restart production. Too many active users."
I totally get how LLMs can help you write, especially in the collaborative way described. But as a reader do I actually want to read that? Maybe for documentation or something it's fine, but if you're trying to convey an opinion or make a human connection it feels a bit... cheap?
You can convey human emotions with the aid of a guitar to improve your singing or an LLM to improve your writing. One is a musical instrument, the other is a prose instrument. Is it cheapening the human connection to sing with the help of a guitar? That depends on your skill with the instrument.
The difference is that `ls` is specified in POSIX and everyone has roughly the same expectations of what it does.
Nothing specifies what a binary called `sl` does. The user didn't "overwrite" anything. They just had an `sl` binary that was not the `sl` binary Jest expects. Arguably they had the more commonly known binary with that name.
Presumably you need to be connected to wifi to obtain games, so that's not a great answer.
I also found the scoreboards surprising. I wouldn't expect a Gameboy-like device to be reporting things back to a server. I don't have any particular privacy concerns about it myself, but it is surprising, and I can see why people might object.
Given the context around that line, I interpret that as applying to their actual Mac applications that deal with usernames/password/hostnames, especially since the sentence that precedes that is
> Except as described above
And further up there is a carve-out for Playdate logging.
They also don't really need to send out your username for the API call -- they already know who you are because your device is tied to your account.
I do find it surprising that there is no way to not participate in leaderboards.
> Presumably you need to be connected to wifi to obtain games
Not only that, but the API link provided by the author specifies that scores are stored in the device if Wifi is offline and uploaded later, so aparently, there's no way to block uploading unless the device is hard-reset (is that even possible?) before connecting to Wifi to get another game.
The only good thing I see is that the score board is not mandatory and it seems pretty benign if no other data is attached by the OS when scores are uploaded. But then, if scores are supported, 90% of the tracking infrastructure is already there.
> However, it's important to note that every clue you view will have an impact on your overall score. Exercise caution and strategic thinking as you navigate through the evidence and interrogate the suspects to piece together the ultimate solution.
That sounds great! But what actually happened was I clicked through clue after clue about person X being in room Y at time Z until I eventually got told what the murder weapon wasn't three times in a row. I didn't feel like I could exercise any caution or strategic thinking; it was just "Nope, this isn't enough information" over and over until "Yes, this is now enough information".
At the point where I thought I had enough information, I realised I hadn't been consistent in how exactly I was using the notebook: does a tick in the "9:15" box means "They entered at 9:15" or "They left at 9:15"? The boxes really need to correspond to the times they're in the rooms, rather than the instants they move between (so either labelled with a range: 9:00-9:15, 9:15-9:30, or move the labels so they sit in the gaps in between).
Also the "How to Play" link isn't openable in a new tab (because it's handled by javascript), and if you open it normally and go back to the main page you lose all your progress
> That sounds great! But what actually happened was I clicked through clue after clue about person X being in room Y at time Z until I eventually got told what the murder weapon wasn't three times in a row. I didn't feel like I could exercise any caution or strategic thinking; it was just "Nope, this isn't enough information" over and over until "Yes, this is now enough information".
I need to think about this, but for sure the clues will be refined to encourage this. Right now, there are only a couple of types of clues and they don't feel very organic.
> At the point where I thought I had enough information, I realised I hadn't been consistent in how exactly I was using the notebook: does a tick in the "9:15" box means "They entered at 9:15" or "They left at 9:15"? The boxes really need to correspond to the times they're in the rooms, rather than the instants they move between (so either labelled with a range: 9:00-9:15, 9:15-9:30, or move the labels so they sit in the gaps in between).
I need to think about this. English is not my first language and it could be possible that some sentence are misleading to native speakers.
> Also the "How to Play" link isn't openable in a new tab (because it's handled by javascript), and if you open it normally and go back to the main page you lose all your progress
Related to the above, one thing that wasn’t clear to me was whether the first three clues should be sufficient to identify the killer. From a game play perspective, I don’t think that matters because the theoretical high score (assuming you solve it without randomly guessing) could just be lower if you need extra clues for that problem due to the first three not being sufficient. However I couldn’t tell if I was being dumb or I didn’t have enough information.
You are right, it is very very unlikely that the first three clues are enough to identify the killer in any reasonable scenario. The ranking is still very preliminary and it will be improved very soon.
> I need to think about this, but for sure the clues will be refined to encourage this. Right now, there are only a couple of types of clues and they don't feel very organic.
Yes, with some more varied clues I can see how it could be very fun. Maybe an extra type of clue could be associating suspects with potential murder weapons (e.g. "Alice said she never touched the rope" or "Forensic testing found traces of Bob's DNA on the poison bottle").
Or maybe another type could be like: "Alice heard someone in the bedroom when she was in the kitchen at 09:30". In the right circumstances that could give you _just_ enough information to deduce something.
Dave said: "I saw Bob when I arrived to the kitchen at 9:30"
also
Dave said: "I saw nobody when I was leaving the bedroom at 9:15"
How could he leave the bedroom at 9:15, but arrive to the kitchen at 9:30? Where he was from 9:15 to 9:30? I assume that each transition takes 15 minutes, so that he can't step directly into the bathroom or the living room from the bedroom.
I agree a greater variety of clue types would make it more interesting.
And then maybe each clue you reveal increases the chances of some failure outcome (e.g. murderer escapes, kills again, etc)? That would definitely prompt more caution and strategic thinking before revealing the next clue.
But you can also say: "Do you know what 11:59PM means? 12:00PM is one minute after that"
Midday and midnight are the points at which AM/PM change and you can't logically differentiate them by appending AM or PM. You just have to know the arbitrary cultural convention that midday is PM.
The underlying observation is that the entire hour from X:00 - X:59 is either AM or PM, and not a mixture.
12:00 and 12:01 are both in the 12:XX hour, but 11:59 and 12:00 are not. Of course the whole thing is arbitrary, but the convention is that the 12:00 - 12:59 hour is PM, rather than just 12:00.
That would actually fix some ugly CSS I have. The demo works. Neat.
Except... the demo doesn't use either the old syntax or the new syntax. The browser support is wrong (Firefox doesn't support it, the site says Firefox 16+; it says Chrome 43+ but in reality it's much newer: Chrome 148+). It says "Since 2018" but the spec was introduced in 2024.
So maybe an interesting overview of things that might be available or might not, but the filtering and data on the site doesn't seem to be useful.