Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#121

Post by jraph »

hu3 wrote: post #39
piotrke wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh my, you needed chatgpt to check that? ;) Btw, it is a kind of useful to have the date ordered in the obvious minor to major way...

I don't need AI to check this info. In the same way I don't need a car if I have a horse :) I could have spent much more time compiling the same information myself. You're free to keep using horses though.

You don't need a car to go to your neighbor.

But it's actually worse than that: while both the car and the horse will correctly move you from A to B, you can't cite an LLM output as a source and can't use it to check something. You can use it as a source of inspiration at best.

Here your LLM output is wrong. Someone from Germany wrote they most commonly use dots, in France we use slashes and I think countries around all do one of the other.

So yes, there's no way around doing it like we always did: find a reputable source to back a statement. And ChatGPT does not do this.

Better use a horse than a roulette.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#122

Post by apitman »

chungy wrote: post #26
XlA5vEKsMISoIln wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It looks weird to me too, but it's hardly indecipherable. You have a four-digit year (2000), there's only 12 months in the year, so the "28" is the day and "03" is the month. In ISO 8601 format, it'd be 2000-03-28. In American written format, it'd be March 28, 2000.

Hey now, don't go insinuating us Americans are nearly that logical. We'd write 3/28/00 every time and consider it a job well done.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#123

Post by jraph »

ayewo wrote: post #69

On a related note, starting today, I noticed that x.com (fka Twitter.com) is no longer working in Firefox. I get the following error: > Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot. > Firefox’s Enhanced Tracking Protection (Strict Mode) is known to cause issues on x.com

Only very remotely related if you squint hard enough though, no?

(sorry for sounding a bit rude, not my intention, I would like to read friendly but I can't find a nice way to point this out and still want to do it - it's just that I wouldn't find it very enjoyable if all HNers started commenting about general / random issues they encountered on some product P in a submission about a specific/historical issue in P - I'm sure we all encountered some issue while using Firefox / any browser at least once, especially with Twitter which screams buggy to me as a distant observer, I remember consistently having to try and refresh pages several times a few years ago to display a 140 character tweet - awful experience)

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#124

Post by omoikane »

dist-epoch wrote: post #81

At least they don't sweep bugs under the rug after 6 months of inactivity as many projects.

I believe the common term for this is "bug bankruptcy".

And when teams declare bug bankruptcy too often, it's called "bug insolvency". I have only seen "bug insolvency" once, but "bug bankruptcy" seemed to be commonly used.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#125

Post by bryanlarsen »

OJFord wrote: post #116
lamontcg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2nd of August, 2024 or Feb 8th, 2024.

Exactly. Choice of the separator '/' doesn't disambiguate.

It does in my jurisdiction. 2/8/24 is usually m/d/y, 2-8-24 is usually d-m-y, 2024-2-8 is always y-m-d.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#126

Post by sanderjd »

nuccy wrote: post #111
sanderjd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it iff I can hover over the human readable version to get the actual timestamp.

Better the opposite - date by default and on hover human readable. People would more likely want to copy the actual date than the human readable delta.

Agree to disagree :) The "human readable" is better at a glance, and timestamps are better when I care about the specifics.

> People would more likely want to copy the actual date than the human readable delta.

I agree that this is true when copying, but text is primarily for reading, not copying.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#127

Post by sanderjd »

apitman wrote: post #118
sanderjd wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it iff I can hover over the human readable version to get the actual timestamp.

This can have problems on mobile

Yes, but I think the solutions work fine; tap, hard press, whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I share the annoyance with interfaces where I have no way to find the actual timestamp. It's better to only have a timestamp than to only have the "human readable" version with no way to get the timestamp. But (in my opinion) the best is to have the human readable version, with a way to get at the timestamp.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#128

Post by Vegenoid »

sanderjd wrote: post #127
apitman wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This can have problems on mobile

Yes, but I think the solutions work fine; tap, hard press, whatever. Don't get me wrong, I share the annoyance with interfaces where I have no way to find the actual timestamp. It's better to only have a timestamp than to only have the "human readable" version with no way to get the timestamp. But (in my opinion) the best is to have the human readable version, with a way to get at the timestamp.

I think the problem is that the mechanism to trigger mouse-hover is not clear on a touchscreen - there are several different ways that need to be remembered and tried, as evidenced by your comment.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#129

Post by jimnotgym »

Xenoamorphous wrote: post #46

Off topic but I really dislike the trend of using “human readable durations” like “a month ago”, just tell me the bloody date, I can figure out for myself. Outlook (Mac version at least) is the worst offender. For emails prior to the current day it will say for example just “yesterday” and it will only show you the time if you click on the email. I get dozens of mails per day, having just “yesterday” for 50 messages…

> just tell me the bloody date, I can figure out for myself.

I, however, really struggle with this. I have a real problem with any concept of dates or the passing of time.

Re: Firefox bug gets fixed after 25 years

#130

Post by lukan »

sha16 wrote: post #63
mg wrote: post #8

The one long term open bug that irks me the most is that you cannot properly date-format the x-axis of scatter plots in LibreOffice: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54132 12 years old. According to the comments, fixing it is discouraged as the code is so "horribly complicated", it would likely cause regressions.

This does not bode well for my hopes of LibreOffice getting my favorite features from Excel.

Excel code is likely "horribly complicated" behind the scenes as well.

I looked at the openoffice source code 15 years ago .. and stepped back again. But I think LibreOffice systematically refactored a lot of it. It wouldn't hurt asking for it.

Some things are surprisingly easy to implement. Some things would require a redesign, when you are dealing with very old legacy code..

Post reply on HN