141–150 of 157 posts
Yet again I am reminded that my google is not necessarily the same as 'your' google Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!
quick tip : google.com/ncr for no country redirect.
Yet again I am reminded that my google is not necessarily the same as 'your' google Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york https://www.google.com/search?q=flights+to+new+york+from+la https://www.google.com/search?q=calories+in+a+pint
Where did they get an arbitrary 154 calories for a pint of beer? Calorie count is closely tied to style and alcohol content. A few examples: Bud Light: 109 calories in 120z. Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA: 294 calories in 12oz. Weyerbacher Merry Monks: 279 calories in 12oz.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. Most people don't want to program. In a world where people still don't know what a browser is, I am optimistic for online-stopwatch.
> Typing "timer for 10 seconds" is similar to programming. The Google Search field is the CLI of the web?
It's not perfect though, this link will start a timer for 1 minute, not 24 hours and 1 minute: https://www.google.com/#q=timer+23+hours+61+minutes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you blocked javascript? I believe you have identified the cause. Switching javascript off and on between queries makes the define: operator stop working and then return to working. I block cookies and don't log into google in both cases. Silly, lazy, javascript-loving google, it used to work just fine without javascript and I don't see anything particularly special about how it works now that should require java…
> Silly, lazy, javascript-loving google, it used to work just fine without javascript It used to not be interactive, either, yet now it is. JavaScript used to not be a core web technology, yet now it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fine when the functionality actually requires JavaScript. The trouble being discussed is when displaying plaintext requires JavaScript for no particularly good reason.
It's 2013. I don't think it's especially unreasonable to assume JavaScript is universally available when developing a feature. As hnriot said, if you choose to browse the web with JavaScript disabled, you accept the fact that large swaths of the 2013 web will not work.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us...
Essentially all of the browser exploits over the last decade have had javascript as a necessary component. Irresponsible use of javascript forces your users to expose themselves to attacks for your convenience. That is abusive and is the kind of thing that will drive away your most sophisticated users who are likely to be be adoption trend-setters for any endeavor not primarily pop-culture oriented.
Google's inertia means they don't have to care, but nearly everybody else has a lot more to lose from alienating those users.
Yet again I am reminded that my google is not necessarily the same as 'your' google Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!
On the subject of definitions, I wish I could set up OS X's 3-finger tap dictionary lookup to give me definitions in other languages. It would be one of the most useful things ever for learning another language. I could start trying to read French or German and triple tap a word and have it give me the translation to English and the dictionary definition in German (which would pop up a window where you could three fi…