jeremyparker

joined 2 years ago
[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 20 points 5 months ago (4 children)

It is exactly our compassion for humanity that we are culturally celebrating that dude’s death

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago

Joking aside, it’s actually not. It was invented to explain why a particular group of captives were critical of the cops who arrested their captor — but it turns out it was because the cops were incredibly incompetent and nearly got them all killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

I'm not sure tbh -- I use a mbp for work, but if I'm on it, I'm usually not gaming... That said, I bought a steam deck last summer and it's amazing. I haven't played a console or handheld in like 15 years so my thumbs are weak and flimsy... but spending a summer evening out on the stoop with the steam deck while watching my kids run around like kids... doesn't get much better than that.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 35 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Back in my day we used to make “tfw” (that feel when) or “mfw” (my face when) posts that rarely if ever contained a face or a feeling

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you hate women and don’t want them to have bodily autonomy? You see how that sounds? It’s the same logic as your argument.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 4 points 6 months ago

Came here for this. How can they legally use a headline like that. This is why we can’t have nice things.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

If both of them support genocide, but one also supports banning abortion, the ethical choice is to vote for the one that won’t ban abortion.

If you’d rather wait until a candidate arrives that agrees with you on every issue, that’s fine, but you’ll probably never vote, and in the meantime, by not voting, supporting whichever candidate you like less.

While there’s no honor in the presidency, there is honor in doing what you can to reduce harm, and if you can’t reduce harm to the Palestinians, at least you can reduce harm to American women and girls.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You’re not wrong, but, like with critics of other “abolish such-n-such” statements, you’re missing a core part of it: replacing “such-n-such” with something better. Copyright has a few important purposes, and I don’t think anyone would want to eliminate it without covering those — and the need for creators to survive, and maybe even flourish, is chief among them.

(Same thing with “defund the police” — the intention was to redirect that funding to crime prevention and “alternative policing” (eg send therapists to mental health emergencies instead of cops). That was arguably the biggest PR fail of the century.)

Also, very very minor point, but as a librarian:

content libraries

I think “content collections” would be a better term, to preserve the free-to-share subtext of the word “library” — and “collection” has more of a hoarding context, which fits.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Bill Gates has made anti-knowledge sharing his lifelong legacy, from crushing OpenGL by bribing game developers not to build in it, to pushing the US gov’t to give away COVID vaccines to poor countries rather than making the data available so they could make their own. His influence in the industry towards proprietary and closed source code is unmatched. Like, we all love the nerd jumping over the computer with the goofy smile but that dude is a piece of shit.

My point was that if we (you!) were able to level the windows/Linux gaming playing field before he died, that would make him mad, and make me happy.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Most people say things like “fuck copyright” because it’s currently set up to benefit employers, large companies, and wealthy people; creators are an obstacle in copyright law. Current copyright law hinders creativity and centralizes wealth. Fuck copyright.

If copyright law was creator-centric, there would be a lot fewer people saying “fuck copyright”.

Personally I’d probably still be against copyright, but only if there was some other way to take care of artists, like a UBI or something.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

If copyright protected the creatives then there would be a lot less antagonism against copyright. Most people are against it because it’s become a lever of control for big companies to use against both the creators and the public.

[–] jeremyparker@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Please can we destroy Bill Gates’s open source legacy before he dies. I want him to see it die. I want him to be lying on his deathbed, reading an article in Ars Technica about gamers switching to Linux.

And by “please can we” obviously I mean “please can you,” I’m just a lowly full stack dev (aka a lamprey) who wears a Red Hat sweatshirt I got from a friend

 

In CSS, let's talk about srcset or image-set. In that context, you can define which image the browser loads using 1x, 2x, 3x, etc. These refer to pixel density. (In the case of srcset, you can use pixel dimensions too, which sidesteps the issue I'm going to talk about, but it still occurs in image-set, and also is still weird to me in srcset, even if you can side step it.)

So, assuming, say, a 20" monitor with 1080p resolution is 1x, then a 10" screen with 1080p would be, technically, 2x - though, in the real world, it's more like a 6" screen has a 1000x2500 resolution - so, I don't care about math, that's somewhere between 2x and 3x.

Let's imagine a set of images presented like this:

srcset(image_1000x666.webp 1x,
image_1500x1000.webp 2x,
image_3000x2000.webp 3x)

then an iphone 14 max (a 6"-ish screen with a 1000x2500-ish resolution, for a 2-3x pixel density), would load the 3000x2000 image, but my 27", 1440p monitor would load the 1000x666px image.

It seems intuitively backwards - but I've confirmed it - according to MDN, 1x = smaller image, 3x = larger image.

But as I understand it, an iphone 14 acts as if its a 300x800 screen - using the concept of "points" instead of pixels - which, in the context of "1x" image size makes a lot of sense - but the browser isn't reading that, all it seems to care about is how many pixels are in an inch.

I made a little page to demonstrate the issue, tho I acknowledge it's not hugely helpful, since, other than using your actual eyeballs, it's hard to tell which image is loaded in the scrset example, but take a look if you want.

https://germyparker.github.io/image-srcset-example/

view more: next ›