The Unicode can be ridiculous at times. It contains a character used once in a single manuscript in a extinct language, but not a standardized glyph for an external URL link.
Also would the world be a better place if they gave it back to some third party, so it can be sold to a private collection and be locked in a vault somewhere?
Where it is now has a lot of historical and cultural significance. It is currently being admired publicly by thousands of people, sitting on the coffin of Queen Elisabeth.
however AVIF only has about 65% market penetration.
If you ran a serious webserver, it would make more sense to do automatic on the fly conversion using mod_pagespeed. This way it handles browser support for you.
A decent proportion of the .JPGs and .GIFs being rendered on sites I visit are actually now .WEBP files with the headers set. So I'm seeing lots of people already making this translation invisibly. You only notice when you try to save the images.
Or when you notice quality loss because the original JPEG has significantly higher quality than whatever it got transcoded to.
Seriously, people, stop transcoding to "newer, better" formats at lower quality. Just stop. I should never have a better experience if I set up an older browser that doesn't accept your newfangled stuff. Either manage to get the quality right (easier said than done) or just don't transcode stuff.
(This is much easier to get right if you are also shrinking an image.)
It seems to be pervasive for people to grossly overestimate the savings they can get, looking e.g. at how MPEG-4 TV channels are generally lower quality than MPEG-2 channels. And the biggest HEVC torrents are at most less than half the size of the AVC torrents, usually only like a quarter the size.
I've often felt that English is a prime candidate for spelling reform. Being the modern lingua franca it makes sense to remove the unneeded vestigial remnants of other languages that adds extra unneeded complexity. For some reason it seems that English majors seem to be dead set against it, as they love etymology.
I highly recommend reading Human color vision / Peter K. Kaiser and Robert M. Boynton. It's a great read if you've gone down the color vision rabbit hole as it has nearly every single topic in regards to human color perception. The biggest surprise for me was that there's still a bit of debate about how exactly neurons in the eye are wired together to produce the color signals that go to the brain.
I read an amazing article once that described the representations of color at different processing levels in the human brain. For example, the 3 types of rods in the retina sense R/B/Y intensity, but at some point it is transformed into a different 3d representation with a R-G axis, a B-Y axis, and a greyscale intensity axis. There was some implication that this is information-theoretically optimal in some sense for representing images sampled from the natural world. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
One of latest papers I've read recommended using a matrix to transform color spaces, which i've also done a codepen for.
Interestingly the opponent process mirrors the LAB color space, which is soon going to be available in Safari. This is pretty cool and can enable developers to color coordinate easier.
I'm going to give the webpage you linked a good read, looks very interesting.
Tailwind is great, but ironically it is full circle in regards to OP's post. You describe the page structure in HTML using classes, much the same before CSS was a thing. This is ideologically opposed to semantic HTML where you describe what the structure is, and not how it is. Using server side frameworks hides this, as long as you don't need to write static HTML. Tailwind has plenty of hype behind it and it's good, but it also has plenty of downsides too. As long as you're aware of where it's be suited for. I think Tailwind is a CSS framework for people who don't want to do CSS.
Semantic HTML is about using the write HTML tags for the right things, like <article>, <figure>, etc. The strings you put inside the class attribute are completely orthogonal to this — Tailwind has absolutely no influence on whether your HTML is semantic or not.
We worked with several accessibility experts when building Tailwind UI for example, and I am very confident in the semantics of all of that markup and how it performs in situations where that actually matters like when using assistive technology, because we tested it ourselves.
> The strings you put inside the class attribute are completely orthogonal to this — Tailwind has absolutely no influence on whether your HTML is semantic or not.
To add to this, screen readers for accessibility and search engine bots don't read CSS class names because they don't have standardised semantics (unlike HTML tags). Minifiers are allowed to mangle CSS class names because of this.
I think the problem here is it's common for people to confuse semantic HTML with semantic CSS class names. The latter are really to help your developers. If you're using utility classes though, you tend to use custom components to wrap + reuse styles versus using custom CSS classes so semantic class names aren't as important anymore. For others, this is explained well here:
I think the OP article is a good story on how we shouldn't cling on to current best practices. CSS was invented before complex single-page-applications were even a thing so it shouldn't be surprising at all if it turns out the old way doesn't scale well to our current needs.
If the R&D is done anyway, why not just wait and build a second telescope if the first one fails? I don't see why that would be any more expensive than building a backup ahead of time, and it means if the first one fails due to an undetected design flaw, they have a chance to correct it.
It’s cheaper to build two at the same time than shutting down production for years and trying to build another one. Tooling doesn’t last forever, and the process and skills required to build one can help you build the second one cheaper. But if you wait, that knowledge is often lost. For example, we have no way to build a Saturn V rocket today even having spent R&D and NRE decades ago.
Same reason NASA built the Space Shuttle Endeavour with spare parts left over from the others, instead of building it from scratch. People move on with their lives, and the facilities that manufacture these things do too. Assuming everything was well documented it should be possible to recreate the tooling and train new people, but that's much more expensive than building two in the first place.
People like to use the term free market to describe the optimal market system, but that's pretty lousy terminology. The truth is, functioning markets are not "free" at all. They are regulated. Unregulated markets rapidly devolve into monopolies, oligopolies, monopsonies, and, if things get really bad, libertarianism.
I've never seen this put so concisely. I've found it frustrating that so much of the popular social-economic diatribe is based on outdated economic terminology from 100 years ago. So much has changed and yet the language does not.
reply