I just tried it on their website, using the desktop browser, and the experience is absolutely OK: you just get the menu as in any web app, and you can close it to go back, etc. Just an old-school page which is blazing fast ... because it is an old-school page. It renders faster than a typical animation to open a sidebar.
But you don't need to open a menu to navigate to another page on an old school web page. Web pages in the 00s just showed you links to other parts of the website on a navbar that is always there. I agree this website is optimized for phones and works poorly on desktop — there is absolutely no reason to hide your links behind a burger menu when I have more than enough pixels on my monitor for all your links.
Yes, the article seems to be not detailed enough. They show the pictures, and it is evident what the pressure release valve is, but I agree that by this logic any container or any steel water bottle is dangerous. Maybe there is some other additional feature that makes it particularly dangerous compared to other models (like, the new seal keeps higher pressure, or the lid needs fewer rotations to disengage, etc.) that is not explained here and makes all the difference. Older models didn't even have a pressure relief valve, did they?
Strongly agree. Forget the savings. Learning the basic tools and understanding how and why the complexity is added (what problems does it solve) is a big one.
At some point UX became a synonym of manipulating users into doing things, and I wonder if it can ever go back.
It might have started in an innocent way, all those A/B tests about call-to-action button color, etc. But it became a full scale race between products and product managers (Whose landing page is best at converting users?, etc.) and somewhere in this race we just lost the sense of why UX exists. Product success is measured in conversion rates, net promoter score, bounce rates, etc. (all pretty much short-term metrics, by the way), and are optimized with disregard to the end-user experience. I mean, what was originally meant by UX. It is now completely turned on its head.
Like I said, I wonder if there is way back of if we are stuck in the rat race. The question is how to quit it.
This is excellent. I prefer Unicode characters over images when possible, like arrows for example, but often struggle finding the exact one I need. Here I can sketch ‼ what I need and then narrow down my search. This is just perfect, many thanks. UX is easy and intuitive. Goes to my bookmarks.
I made a similar tool that in my opinion looks better and is more useful for finding characters. I feel that the tool the OP posted seems cool for short periods of entertainment, but isn't very useful for utility. Link to my website here: https://unicode-atlas.vercel.app
Awwww..., this brings so many memories. I had almost all of the early ones: Voodoo 2, Riva TNT2, then GeForce 3 (I think...). Then I switched to laptops and didn't have a discrete graphics till last year when I started playing with LLMs locally. So basically I jumped from GeForce 3 to RTX 3090 :) Thank you for bringing those memories back!
I would rather suggest a contrary: do smaller increments more frequently. This way it is easier to test and if something goes wrong you know it quicker. Kind of like running your CI pipeline on every commit vs nightly. Going to millisecond adjustments seems, however, very impractical.
Solving it with Claude is a totally different kind of fun of course. But anyway, Claude browser extension is very good at it. I sent it the initial prompt, and then asked it to continue on each next challenge. It passed first 5 challenges on the fly, and started to struggle on challenge 6, which it solved after 4 attempts. I stopped at that point because the fun was depleted.
It's like role-playing a story of software developer in the era AI, but accelerated. The results are truly good and fast. Coding fun zero. The new fun is prompt/context engineering.
<elevator_saga_solver_prompt>
You are a JavaScript developer. On this page you are presented with a coding challenge to solve: an elevator to program in JavaScript. Analyze the page, take a screenshot to understand the floor and elevator layout (how many floors, how many elevators), see the sample code in the solution text box and replace it with your solution for the challenge. Keep the solution simple, just sophisticated enough to solve the task at hand, do not over-engineer or optimize, not unless your initial solution fails. After you insert the solution into the text box, click the "Start" button to test it. After a time limit set for a solution (it is indicated on a page), verify if the solution worked: read page or take screenshot. If it didn't work, try a new better solution. If it worked, you task is complete. See the API documentation here: https://play.elevatorsaga.com/documentation.html#docs .
</elevator_saga_solver_prompt>
reply