This is disingenuous - we were all watching flash video for about a decade before that. And before that we were watching (terrible ~160x120) video in realvideo* or asf format using browser plugins, since maybe 1997-1998, certainly before 2000.
* tangiential rambling old-person side-note: RealPlayer was a weird early example of a piece of software that was actually _better_ on Linux: The windoze version was notorious for also installing a thousand other pieces of spyware/adware and other trash, taking over your system and making it worse, to the point that people avoided it like the plague... But none of that crapware supported Linux, so the Linux version was just this relatively clean player that came as a self-contained, easy to install rpm and worked pretty well. I used to use RealPlayer a fair bit back in my early Linux days. When I used to tie an onion my belt, which was the style at the time.
Just fyi, towel.blinkenlights.nl:23 still works for me, though I think maybe that's an IPv6 version, there's a note about ipv6 at the start that I was too slow to read. Maybe it should be re-listed? :)
Yeah audacious is where it's at. I've never understood why anybody would want to use an audio player that doesn't look like winamp. I even use (a lightly modified version of) the original winamp 2 skin:
https://skins.webamp.org/skin/5e4f10275dcb1fb211d4a8b4f1bda2...
My biggest problem (of many) with client side decorations is that now when your program crashes, you can't just hit the close button to have the window manager kill it, because the process responsible for drawing and responding to the close button has crashed.
The trick is to avoid software using the newer gtk versions.
> I would never have written my own sorting algorithm to sort a list in the past.
Well then I guess times haven't changed, because you still haven't written a sorting algorithm. Instead you've - at best - done a code review for one. One that based on my experience is almost certainly a shoddy, substandard implementation with the type of quality I'd be professionally embarrassed to attach my name to in a commit log.
> I would instead rely on abstractions left for me by those with more experience.
And you'd have been better off, because now you've got the burden of maintaining a poorly-implemented sorting algorithm that you don't understand that's living in your codebase. What could possibly go wrong?
Further, those abstractions that you just threw away to roll your own encryption were written by actually talented people who actually took the time to think about their implementation before shitting it out into the world. The implementations you'll find in libaries will be superior in every way to the trash your LLM will pump out.
So, TL;DR: congratulations, you've just announced to the world that you're proud that you're a bad coder and that the software you're being paid to produce is getting worse.
(for those with the kind of attention span that causes them to use LLMs, maybe just skip ahead to the "this is what you sound like" section, circa 17 mins)
(unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not)
> - Make sure it looks the exact same across all browsers
> How doable is it with vanilla css?
It's not doable with your fancy frontend framework and your 20 imports and your ten thousand lines of typescript.
"Make sure it looks the exact same across all browsers" is, and always has been, fundamentally at odds with how the web is intended to work.
How well does this shadcn crap render in arachne? ladybird? netsurf? links? dillo? netscape 3? The latest version of chrome with user styles applied?
When you say "exactly the same", I assume you mean that the design only uses black and white, because some people might have black and white monitors, right? But you're also going to use amber-on-black because some people might have amber screen monitors, right? How do you plan on ensuring it looks exactly the same on a braille terminal?
Maybe you think I'm being silly. Because nobody uses monochrome monitors in 2026, right? So it's safe to ignore that and put an asterisk next to "exactly the same" (And also just forget that e-ink is a thing that exists).
(Just like how it was safe in 2006 to assume people would always have 800x600 or bigger displays, and nobody would ever come along using a screen with, say, 480×320 resolution)
What measures have you taken to ensure that your colours appear exactly the same across a bunch of different types/brands of monitors that render colours differently? Or, perhaps we should just add another asterisk next to "exactly the same"?
I could go on.
How many asterisks is acceptable before "exactly the same" isn't a thing anymore?
If "exactly the same on all browsers" is one of your goals, you are wrong. If your designer tells you that's what they want, they are wrong. If you ever tell a client that's what you're providing, you are wrong.
I think accessibility is one area where some of these components libraries can be helpful as they automatically include a11y features that might otherwise be ignored.
Displaying the same thing on every monitor to the degree that monitor allows is well-defined. The browser may not be able to show some colors and the browser may decide to display things differently on purpose, but it's perfectly reasonable to want to unambiguously express what you _want_ the browser to display.
> Displaying the same thing on every monitor to the degree that monitor allows is well-defined.
In this case the website will not appear the same on every browser. Most browsers have a zoom function that the user controls which is an accessability feature. This changes how the website renders on the page.
If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”
Yeah, like maybe you didn't have $50,000 to appeal a bad decision made because a magistrate couldn't be bothered actually reading the evidence in front of them.
If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal much easier than people sympathetic to the violence.
You are commenting about legal avenues not going your way on a thread literally about the concept of a violent response being justified for people when normal legal avenues don’t go your way.
Well I mean that's nice for you but I'm not sure how it responds to the question asked - when did I say anything about violence being justified? I merely responded to your ignorant and empirically incorrect fantasy-world assumption that the legal system is always right.
At no point did I say the legal system is always right. I suggested that in certain situations it might be right and in those situations resorting to violence because you feel aggrieved at a legal loss would not be an appropriate response. Frankly, some people are guilty and some people are legally responsible.
I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that. I stand by that. You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.
> At no point did I say the legal system is always right
First you made the incorrect assumption that we live in a disney-style fantasy world with "If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a 'why'."
Then you made the totally unwarranted assumption that "If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal"
> I suggested that if you are having difficulty finding an attorney willing to take your case on contingency, there might be a reason for that
No, you made an assumption based on zero information and chose to incorrectly insinuate that the case is not just.
> You are asking a person to take a risk on your behalf who has evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds.
But "evaluated the environment and didn’t like the odds" doesn't actually have anything to do with the case being just, does it? There's a million possible explanations why someone might choose not to donate their time for free. Like for example "I'm aware of just how corrupt this system is based on my previous experiences and so I choose not to waste my time and energy on this".
And it's almost impressive, in a sad way, how indifferent you are to everyone else on the planet, and how prima-facie ridiculous your fantasy world assumptions are when given more than two seconds thought. But I'm not here for that sort of "discussion".
Unfortunately however since you have no response to any of the points I actually made, I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.
"sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about - you yourself claim that you're merely "indifferent". If you're not being a condescending ass, then how is what I wished for "sadistic"? I think you just your entire premise.
> sadistic vengeance"? I don't know what you're talking about
A couple of quotes from your comments above…I added the emphasis that highlights your sadism and vengeance:
“You know, I look forward to the day this unjust system that you blindly and stupidly trust bites you, too”
“I'll just have to say that I hope you run into someone just as horrible when the corrupt system chews you up and spits you out too.”
If you want to claim ignorance about what you wrote, fine. But it’s here for all to see. With every word you post I become more and more convinced that your perception of justice is tilted outside societal norms.
* tangiential rambling old-person side-note: RealPlayer was a weird early example of a piece of software that was actually _better_ on Linux: The windoze version was notorious for also installing a thousand other pieces of spyware/adware and other trash, taking over your system and making it worse, to the point that people avoided it like the plague... But none of that crapware supported Linux, so the Linux version was just this relatively clean player that came as a self-contained, easy to install rpm and worked pretty well. I used to use RealPlayer a fair bit back in my early Linux days. When I used to tie an onion my belt, which was the style at the time.