411111111111111

Apple has perfected their virtue signaling game and all the simps love it.

I don't really mind it either anymore, a lot of people have this hero worship fetish and they can't help painting everything in black and white, even though they're all just different shades of gray.

Apple is definitively brighter on that scale then Google or Meta, but they're all corrupt multinational corporations that will do everything they can get away with to increase their bottom line.

I tried that a few times, but by the time I've explained enough for the code to be close to what I want i could've just implemented it myself twice over... And that's ignoring the fact that it's always generating subtly wrong or just poorly performing code.

It might change eventually as ide integrations improve, but for now it's a novelty for me.

If that was true, then why are there movies/series created solely for streaming providers?

It can't be there sole reason, and I sincerely doubt it's even true. Sure, the price of a single DVD would've covered the price of 1-2 months of streaming on Netflix, but people didn't buy a DVD each month. And if they did, they lent it to friends after.

I only did depth=1 because the syntax doesnt change, i still don't see a difference to speak of

css:

    div:has( > \* > \* > \* > \* > \* > \* > \* > #the-child)
    (backslashes added by hn because of formatting conflict)

xpath:

    //div[@id="the-child"]/../../../../../../../..

lets say you have

    <body>
    <div><!-- you want this one -->
      ok
      <div id="the-child"></div>
    </div>
     <div><!-- you dont want this one -->
      nok
      <div id="the-wrong-child"></div>
    </div>
    </body>

css:

    div:has( > #the-child)

xpath:

    //div[@id="the-child"]/..

isnt that kinda the same? I think I'd even consider the css version to be easier to understand at a glance.

If you've got full control over the Dom it'd be much better to just set an id attribute on the element in question though, as getElementById is still the best performing option

You're responding to a comment that gave you a link to their inital plan, which was literally replacing the ads.

click on it, your horizon might be broadened by the added knowledge.

It's always surprising to me when I hear people using the brave browser... It's by a company that initially tried to replace their blocked ads with their own "safe and non-intrusive" ads as far as I remember, until they backpaddled because of the outrage.

It's also a for-profit company and you're not the customer, as you're not paying them money.

I'd be way more worried how they're using the data they're collecting on you vs Google or MS

I'm not saying that it would be better for authors without copyright. That would indeed be hard to ascertain without a/b testing.

My point was that it doesn't improve their lives, and that's much easier to check in isolation just by reading the news about the current writers strike and how the industry just ignores it until fall, expecting their savings to run out.

Really, copyright just doesn't give the content creators any meaningful power as this right is generally owned by the industry/publisher, not the authors.

You state this as a fact, but it's actually much less certain wherever it's ever been net-positive.

It was probably intended that way, but the reality is that the power has been with the publisher since the beginning, and they've absolutly been screwing over the author's as well. Only the most successful author's have gotten decent deals.

I don't have an answer to this either though, i just wanted to point out that copyright has arguably never been successful at getting money to the content creators proportional to the value the Publisher extracted from the work either.