MDN doesn't even have it yet. Looks like it's WebKit exclusive for a while.
The [draft for addition to the CSS spec](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-5/#resolving-contrast) just got added. Kind of wonder why Apple includes this in Safari as color-contrast rather than -webkit-color-contrast until other browsers have at least indicated a position on this draft. All I can find is decisions to defer the specifications (going back to as far as 2020).
Prefixes are no longer used for new features, and any that still exist are old. What happens now is that features are gated behind feature flags for testing until the browser working group settles on the final spec for that feature, at which point any browser-maker is free to implement it in public releases.
On the scale of left|lean-left|center|lean-right|right, AllSides rates Washington Post as lean-left[0].
The Washington Post's last 10 US Presidential endorsements were all Democrats[1]: Biden in 2020, Clinton in 2016, Obama in 2012, Obama in 2008, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 1996, Clinton in 1992, Dukakis in 1988, and Mondale in 1984.
So there is no evidence of bias directed from up top. How could you tell the difference between journalists calling BS on bad GOP ideas vs some amorphous bias?
We adopted a principle early on: don't load stuff until it's needed. This makes our initial page loads fast, it is less taxing on end users' machines, it uses less bandwidth. It also helps our performance scores, which in turn help our SEO.
So yeah, a lot of lazy loading. :-) There are probably some pages where we could ease up on that.
> "Ed Martin pledges to Musk "any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people."
Some context here: after a recent Wired article naming the several young Dept. of Government Efficiency engineers, numerous Reddit posts and subreddits have tried to dox and threaten[0] their lives.
Further context here: Ed Martin is the guy who supported pardoning rioters from Jan. 6th and also claims that the 2020 election was rigged. It would be appropriate to say he doesn't have the most politically lucid track record.
On the plus side, this sort of wanton cronyism should correlate with an uptick in nations recognizing how head-up-ass insane American politicians are.
I remember watching an episode of the 1960s police drama, Dragnet.
In one of the episodes, Detective Joe Friday spoke with some computer technicians in a building full of computers (giant, at the time). Friday asked the computer technician,
> "One more thing. Do you think that computers will take all our jobs one day?"
> "No. There will always be jobs for humans. Those jobs will change, maybe include working on and maintaining computers, but there will still be important jobs for humans."
That bit of TV stuck with me. Here we are 60 years later and that has proven true. I suspect it will still be true in 60 years, regardless of how well AI advances.
Dario Amodei, former VP of research at OpenAI and current CEO of Anthropic, notes[0] a similar sentiment:
> "First of all, in the short term I agree with arguments that comparative advantage will continue to keep humans relevant and in fact increase their productivity, and may even in some ways level the playing field between humans. As long as AI is only better at 90% of a given job, the other 10% will cause humans to become highly leveraged, increasing compensation and in fact creating a bunch of new human jobs complementing and amplifying what AI is good at, such that the “10%” expands to continue to employ almost everyone. In fact, even if AI can do 100% of things better than humans, but it remains inefficient or expensive at some tasks, or if the resource inputs to humans and AI’s are meaningfully different, then the logic of comparative advantage continues to apply. One area humans are likely to maintain a relative (or even absolute) advantage for a significant time is the physical world. Thus, I think that the human economy may continue to make sense even a little past the point where we reach “a country of geniuses in a datacenter”.
Amodei does think that eventually we may need to eventually organize economic structures with powerful AI in mind, but this need not imply humans will never have jobs.
To summarize, fears of AI out competing humans for labor rely on the "lump of labor fallacy" which is the same fallacy employed to justify anti-immigrant sentiment in the form of "they took our jobs"?
> "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?"
No. This is one of those questions that sounds easy but is hard in practice.
Sure, it's bad for society if a lot of people promote an obviously false idea such as flat earth.
But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!")
And you can't really automate that, because then you could inadvertently block e.g. people discussing history about ancient cultures and their views of the earth.
So humans have to be involved.
Now throw politics and money into the mix and it gets murkier still. Was it misinformation when people said the state of Georgia elected President Trump even before all the votes were counted? (And the inverse: was it misinformation that CNN refused to call Georgia for President Trump even when it became mathematically impossible for Senator Harris to win it?)
It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory.
Too often tech folks try to think in binary here: either misinformation or factual information. But reality isn't always so clear cut. I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true.
>But do we want companies like Meta to suppress that information? That creates kind of its own set of problems. For example, it creates a sense of persecution, which generates more followers. ("Big tech is censoring me!")
I don't think that's the question. Companies like Meta are already allowed to "suppress" that information by moderating content. But that isn't an enforcement of universal "truth," since a platform can only moderate itself.
I think the question is whether the government should be allowed to determine what is and isn't truth and force all platforms to either suppress or publish based on that determination alone. That's what repealing Section 230 would lead to.
>It was not long ago when the COVID accidental lab leak theory was considered misinformation. Do you want Facebook censoring posts about that? Now that theory enjoys status as a real possibility. What was once considered misinformation is now considered a possible, even plausible theory.
OK? And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it? Did it even hinder popular discussion of the lab leak theory in any significant way? From what I recall, it didn't.
>I don't want social media companies being the arbiter of what's true.
They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true, and that seems worse to me. Yes, mistakes can be made where attempts to adjudicate truth and misinformation are concerned, but between being banned from Facebook or having men with guns knock down my door for publishing illegal facts, I'd rather have the former.
It is, though. The parent asked, "Don't we want companies like Meta to be responsible for misinformation?"
I am responding to that question, so yes, that is the question.
> "And were people sent to the gulags because Facebook banned discussion of it?"
Must there be gulags involved for free speech to be suppressed?
And yes, it did hinder discussion of the lab leak theory. Dozens of news outlets suppressed this theory, even mislabeling it as a conspiracy theory and ostracizing those who held it.
> "They aren't, and never have been. But you do seem to want government to be the arbiter of what's true"
Wow, either there is a serious miscommunication here or you are deliberately misreading my post. I don't want government or social media companies to be the arbiters of what's true. I don't want the current or future administration mislabeling critiques of the government as "hateful" or "misinformation". Nor do I want Zuck, Pichai, or any other tech company suppressing speech because it is unpopular, hateful, or misinformation. We cannot entrust government or corporations with guarding our rights to free speech.
- Click to play video overlay (one that isn't available in your country)
- Tab closing prompt
Thinking about this problem technically, most of these obscenities are vying for top level. In the early days, browsers could detect when a popup was trying to launch and block them. Could we do something similar but for top level DOM?
Alternately, could a browser have a quiet mode? No prompts, banners, overlays, etc.
Sadly, development of reader mode seems to be stagnant for both Firefox and Chrome. While it works for a substantial number of pages, I was hoping that more pages would work as years go by. Too bad that doesn't appear to have happened.
One interesting thing I noticed after updating to iOS 18 specifically, is the removal of reader mode as a "mode". It's now OFFERED to you in the new view menu based on some heuristic about the page that Apple has determined, but it's not a mode you can turn on regardless of if Apple thinks you're on a "readable" document or not.
Frustrating since their "remove distracting elements" feature was a great value-add, done in the same update.
Watch some of the videos, they are remarkably targetted. One man is standing at a checkout line in a grocery store, 2 women near him. He looks at his pager before it explodes. The women around him are unharmed.
If the man is unarmed, I don't think they can be considered a legitimate target. If that is the case, then you could argue all Israelis who have a military background are legitimate targets and that includes most of the population.
The concept of legitimate targets is from the Geneva convention.
> A fundamental premise of the Geneva Conventions has been that to earn the right to protection as military fighters, soldiers must distinguish themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and carrying their weapons openly
Hezbollah fighters clearly aren’t doing this and this is whether the fundamental argument around how Israel behaves comes from - what is a legitimate target and rules of engagement when the fighting force blends itself into the general populace? For all the criticism, Israel by some accounts does seem to do better than the US in similar circumstances when they were in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of protecting civilian populations. And for all their criticism (some well deserved some not) they could certainly be even more indiscriminate in their targeting.
What do you mean? I am not in any way supporting Hezbollah but their soldiers are definitely "wearing uniforms and carrying their weapons openly." Hamas and Hezbollah are not the same. Hamas is more decentralized though so that doesn't happen as often in that case. Hezbollah soldiers are also salaried and more properly equipped by Iran/Syria.
The biggest difference between Hezbollah and Hamas is that in Hezbollah's case, their soldiers are more motivated by money rather than ideology. They treat it more like a "professional" job, work for promotions, and dress accordingly. It's a significantly more top-down structure too.
Hezbollah has been accused of employing similar tactics of hiding among civilian populations and hiding military equipment in civilian buildings which makes sense both given that Iran is backing both these groups and from a strategic view if you’re fighting a significantly more advanced enemy.
As for ideology vs money, it’s hard to distinguish which motivates them more va Hamas given these movements started from seed money and personnel from the Iranian revolutionary guard.
But certainly hezbollah started indiscriminately shelling Israeli civilian targets and Israel is responding by targeting military personnel and infrastructure. It’s up to the Lebanese government to control Hezbollah (which they cant) and Hezbollah is responsible for collateral civilian casualties that stem from attacking them
That's just the videos that have been published and the ones that happened to be captured by CCTV. If 1000 devices were indiscriminately detonated, even a 5% collateral damage rate would mean up to 50 innocent people harmed, maimed, or killed. At 15%, 150, and so forth.
That would still make it the least indiscriminate long-range attack in the history of warfare.
Give me another example of a military that injured/incapacitated over 1000 enemy combatants from hundreds of miles away with so few civilian casualties.
[Mordac] "Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no one would able able to use anything."
[Asok's computer screen]: "To complete login procedure, stare directly at the sun."
[0]: https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2007-11-16