161–170 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they enjoy faster performance that JiT optimization yields
That's technically true, but most average users probably don't care. It's like optimizing your car's fuel efficiency by changing your spark plugs more often. When was the last time you changed your spark plugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Layout is actually difficult and offers a great many interesting problems when you try to parallelize it or efficiently use GPU acceleration. There are a lot of constraints and text is difficult to size and render.
Layout is automated (and hopefully repeatable) typesetting. The other thing Donald Knuth is famous for is getting so fed up with typesetting for his books, he created a document format to help him keep his sanity. And then went way way down that rabbit hole instead of finishing his book series. One might argue that's not sanity-preserving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they enjoy faster performance that JiT optimization yields
That's technically true, but most average users probably don't care. It's like optimizing your car's fuel efficiency by changing your spark plugs more often. When was the last time you changed your spark plugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's sad how these valuable optimizations are unknown to the average person. Does the average person really need to understand JIT optimisations?
No, but they enjoy faster performance that JiT optimization yields
Web developers aren't alone here, of course. It's the same story for systems software as well.
In general, thinking in terms of equilibriums is helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google needs Firefox to exist for anti-trust reasons. If they don’t buy fire fox’s traffic, bing will.
I always wondered if firefox would actually change default engine if google stops the cash. It would remove some chunk of users at least imo, can firefox really afford it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think pg sums it up the best: http://www.paulgraham.com/name.html "The problem with not having the .com of your name is that it signals weakness. Unless you're so big that your reputation precedes you, a marginal domain suggests you're a marginal company." I'd say there's a few major reasons: protecting the name and signaling we're a real company to larger corporations. For us, we also host websites that allows JS/…
Whew, that is the sentiment of a true plutocrat and elitist. You're weak unless you're rich and pay to rent in the good part of town. Sure, it's desirable to look serious to commercial partners and investors, but mostly it's an Internet branding tax. Most of your customers will Google your site.
And that's why seeing ".com" is important. You just proved his point, duh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google needs Firefox to exist for anti-trust reasons. If they don’t buy fire fox’s traffic, bing will.
I always wondered if firefox would actually change default engine if google stops the cash. It would remove some chunk of users at least imo, can firefox really afford it?
It's nice to see some actual good news involving Firefox. With all of the leadership and financial struggles lately, it's made me worry that the browser I've been using for the last 17 years doesn't have long to live. Hopefully that is not the case.
The media autoplay forced on (with settings that don't turn it off in mobile or desktop) make me miserable and seriously considering using something else that isn't Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The media autoplay forced on (with settings that don't turn it off in mobile or desktop) make me miserable and seriously considering using something else that isn't Chrome.
What, Chrome has autoplay on? How can anyone stand that? It reminds me of IE7 with auto-installed toolbars that took 1/3 of the screen.
I misworded my original. I wanted to say, I'm considering moving off Firefox, but not to Chrome.