gluxon

[deleted]

PortableApps.com is where I started programming back when I was 11 years old in 2008.

The community completely changed my life. I learned a lot about writing software on forums and the IRC channel from numerous people that were just willing to give advice to a stranger. I'm glad this community is still alive.

I proudly say my first programming language is NSIS. (The Windows scripting language most wrappers on the site are written in.)

Thank you John.

> If it doesn't have any absolutely positioned or floating child elements, wouldn't that imply contain: content?

I think the goal is to avoid analyzing child elements at all. So you can layout a given set of children at one layer of the DOM tree at once rather than having to dig deeper into one node to know where to put its sibling.

> And if you add overflow: auto or hidden, wouldn't that infer to contain: strict?

I think browsers would only be able to reasonable infer "contain: strict" on elements with both overflow auto/hidden and fixed width/height.

I'm guessing that "contain: strict" would allow you to avoid defining fixed height and width then? (That was just my first guess. There may be other reasons.)

I believe this would eliminate many uses of large list rendering libraries (such as react-virtualized/react-window). That's pretty neat.

The same caveats seem to be present for strict containment mode though. The width/height of a strictly contained element wont't update if its contents change.

> For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident or crash-like event for every 1.92 million miles driven. By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) most recent data shows that in the United States, there is an automobile crash every 492,000 miles. While NHTSA’s data includes accidents that have occurred, our records include accidents as well as near misses (what we are calling crash-like events).

I'm not quite sure what to make of this data. How is it that Tesla cars (without autopilot) are in 4x less accidents than average?

How do you handle situations where two items (lets call them A and B) are both moved before a third item C?

Then wouldn't A and B both have a "SortVal" that's 1 less than C's SortVal? That would make your SortVals non-unique and order arbitrary.

There may be other reasons, but here's one. The solution with fractions supports ORDER BY syntax. With the self-referential foreign keys, you would have traverse through from the beginning with multiple queries for that behavior.

It's also a lot harder to query results in order while specifying an offset.