javindo

Feels incredibly strange that anyone can publicly view all these office layouts, down to very specific room/corridor/stair layouts, occupancy status, of random private office and university buildings...

The fact it seems to be related to login reminds me of the Tom Scott doomsday fictional lecture which I would link to but you know...

Why is it any more of an issue in software engineering than, say, a singer or actor publicly supporting a cause?

GDS hosts a CF instance called PaaS (Platform as a Service) which hosts web applications on *.cloudapps.digital but the majority of the actual GOV.UK estate is hosted in AWS, as is GOV.UK Verify. I believe GOV.UK Pay might be on PaaS and a lot of internal tooling is.

(Source: have worked at GDS for the past couple of years.)

Since surprisingly nobody has mentioned it in the comments here yet, we have a similar scheme in place in London, and have done for quite some time. It's only for the most central/congested zone and has had a hugely beneficial impact on congestion.

That being said, it almost never makes sense to drive a car inside central London anyway as the public transport is very reliable and has almost full coverage, and it's dealing with a very different problem in the first place (old horse and cart windy roads adjusting for the modern age).

Not sure if it's the same client, but the Skye for Business client is also just as bad.

I used to work on a virtualised Windows machine (work mandated) and the only usable accessibility option was a high DPI setting. The old Lync client worked perfectly with this, obviously dating back to an age where they cared about accessibility. Skype for business completely ignored system DPI settings, made certain things huge with other things being tiny.

The spacing was the biggest issue - literally 30-40% of my 43" monitor would often be taken up by spacing around icons etc on the app.

It really felt as though they just stopped putting as much effort into UX, accessibility, usability. Lync felt like a professional IM client, Skype for Business felt like a half baked bodge.

Is there a clear definition between airfield and airport? Or rather, is there a distinction between places you can land a plane vs places an individual can buy a ticket to fly with an airline? I imagine this line gets blurred in certain countries more so than others, perhaps that's what the posted dataset is more geared towards?

With the ever increasing price of BTC you could even end up inadvertently making a small profit on the transaction. That being said, with the volatility of it you could also lose all of your money in an instant.

As with any automated transport discussion, there's the question of liability. If a pilot is at fault, there's an obvious liability on them. People have an intrinsic trust of a human pilot to sort out an issue if it arises, versus relying on a computer which is a complete black box to the passengers. If a pilot is at fault, it's a forgivable thing - in the worst cases the families have some closure, some level of "the pilot messed up, such is life". If a machine or system is at fault, who's to blame? The engineer? The programmer? The maintenance worker? The airline for procuring a cheap contract?

I really wish Google AMP didn't overrule the Chrome android "force enable pinch to zoom" from an accessibility standpoint.

> Should a user be able to purposefully block parts of a page?

I have yet to see a compelling/coherent argument for why they shouldn't.

As a partially sighted user myself, I find it infuriating when web developers try to override browser behaviour/modifications (e.g. blocking pinch to zoom). If we go down a path where users can't modify pages, we are taking a huge step backwards.

I have a visual impairment and one of the things I love about Chrome on Android is the ability to override sites blocking pinch to zoom (i.e. "force enable pinch to zoom").

AMP, also made by Google, seems to somehow get around this browser setting, making AMP sites unreadable and therefore completely useless to me.

Why does Google have these obvious discrepancies between their own products?

Does anyone else get the impression that this might have just been an intern project* or similar?

Seems very odd for a seemingly minor iterative update to pop up out of nowhere after such a long time otherwise.

* The update, not Google Glass itself