91–100 of 105 posts
And yet there are still issues on my Sandy Bridge system with display corruption even with the latest Intel drivers. Also has anyone else noticed that Firefox is no longer keeping the page state when navigating back? For example on Reddit go to the comments section, minimize a few comments then navigate to a link then go back and none of the minimized comments remain minimized, in Firefox prior to 38 things worked co…
Can you post a screenshot?
So, they finally fixed Logjam, 1 month and a half after publication. Chrome still hasn't fixed it. Color me unimpressed.
And yet there are still issues on my Sandy Bridge system with display corruption even with the latest Intel drivers. Also has anyone else noticed that Firefox is no longer keeping the page state when navigating back? For example on Reddit go to the comments section, minimize a few comments then navigate to a link then go back and none of the minimized comments remain minimized, in Firefox prior to 38 things worked co…
Can you post a screenshot?
I love that the Fetch API is happening (has happened!): https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Fetch_API fetch(url).then(data => ...) Not earth-shattering, but much more fun than XHR!
"Drag and drop enabled for nodes in Inspector markup view " This is going to make me never use Chrome dev tools again. Nice
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it.
> How so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. > But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it. I'm not white, and I have a problem with "skin tone" emoji. Previously, skin tones for emoji were left up to the font creator. In practice, this meant that they were usually lime green, neon blue, or Simpsons yellow, all of which are cartoonish enough not…
Nobody said anything about race, thats your assumption. These emoji are merely presenting different skin tones.
> Disable use of RC4 except for temporarily whitelisted hosts This is the one which has the greatest chance of giving people a headache. For instance, one of the biggest banks here still uses only RC4 for its online banking site. Its top-level hostname and a few of its auxiliary hostnames are on the whitelist, but there's no guarantee that all the RC4-only auxiliary hostnames it might use for some of its functionalit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which unfortunately costs time and money. Whilst yes, they should be up to date and secure, banks are pretty big businesses and require more time. One day they'll catch up.
After the CVE score for BEAST and RC4 got adjusted and the RFC 7465 was introduced I've seen some payment systems update their system quite quickly (in a matter of days), and if they didn't they'd probably fail their next PCI audit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9198889 Perhaps it helps if you write your payment site operator/bank private emails asking them to allow other ciphers beside RC4, mine looked like t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Beyond that, the skin tones used are incredibly reductive. Human skin tones are not as simple as 6 different shades of brown. Yes, they are a bit more complicated. But 6 choices that correspond to a widely-used system (Fitzpatrick) is far better than none.
> correspond to a widely-used system (Fitzpatrick) The fact that a system is widely used when classifying the impact of UV light on melanoma does not imply that it has relevance in another. > 6 choices is far better than none. Actually, no, sometimes the "solution" is worse than the problem. It's quite regressive to bake an outdated conception of the color theory of race into a standard that aims to "educate and enga…
You may have a point there. But it is a classification of skin colour as well.
> It's quite regressive to bake an outdated conception of the color theory of race into a standard
Color theory of race? This isn't the Von Luschan chromatic scale, that was used to enforce racial segregation. It's a simple colour selector based on level of melanin.
It's not perfect, sure, but I think it's surely better to allow a choice of skin shades than to make everyone white (the de facto result otherwise). You might object that implementers could make everyone black, say, and that's also true. But either way, you're enforcing a "default" skin colour, and there is no such thing. Different human populations have different skin colours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not white in the sense of "European". They just have a light skin colour. Japanese skin isn't bright yellow. A Japanese person draws a simple human face, an American draws a simple human face, both will draw "white" skin.
Way back up in this comment: How so? If you're white, perhaps you see no problem with making everyone's skin white. But the billions of people who aren't white might have a problem with it. I really thought you meant Caucasian. Did you just mean light-skinned?
It would have been better if I said "light-skinned", yes. While East Asians are not "white" in the "racial" sense (ew), their skin is light much like Europeans', and thus when the Japanese created the emoji, they made them have light skin.
Sorry for the confusion.
