jeff_tyrrill

I haven't dug into the history to see if this is really how it happened. I'd actually feel better if it wasn't true but it's the thought that occurred to me when I noticed the scroll fade effect becoming popular.

I feel like the scroll fade fad is misunderstanding layered on bugs, turtles all the way down.

Once upon a time, developers implemented lazy loading of images, to save bandwidth. However, some developers implemented it poorly, waiting until the moment an image is scrolled on-screen to even start loading it, leading to a visible blip as you scroll.

(The better way would be to load an additional pageful of images beyond the current scroll view, which would provide enough time to load before scrolling into view at least most of the time. However, this doesn't maximally save bandwidth and some developers don't make good tradeoffs between diminishing returns on saving bandwidth vs. visibly degraded UX.)

Then, designers saw the blip-into-view effect, thought it was an intentional visual effect (rather than an artifact of poorly implemented lazy loading), but thought, oh, I'll fix it so it looks nice, with fading.

And here we are with a dumb visual fad originating from a bug without realizing it was a bug.

There's a great reason: I'm using HTTP only as a transport layer, not a semantic layer.

They're isolated by website but the tabs are not isolated from each other, like in Safari (in private browsing).

This distinction matters, if you primarily use private browsing, and have lots of tabs open from a site (say, Wikipedia, or Reddit, or pick a social networking service you don't want to track you by cookie[1]) - that particular website will know all the different tabs are from the same user potentially over a long stretch of time if at least one of those tabs remains open.

[1] Ad networks also track by IP address, so you need to take measures there too.

In Settings, on the General tab, for "Safari opens with", select either "All windows from last session" or "All non-private windows from last session".

Two little-appreciated privacy features in Safari not mentioned in the article:

Each private browsing tab has its own cookie / data bucket[1]; and

Private browsing tabs and windows are preserved across restarts. (This is optional and can be configured to forget them upon restart.)

These make it practical to use private browsing for nearly all browsing, which isn't really the case in other browsers, where private browsing is clearly designed as an occasional-use thing. (And of course if you use private browsing for most things, you can still open regular windows for sites where you want to stay logged in.)

[1] If a link or script in a tab opens a new tab or window, then they share the same cookie bucket. This preserves compatibility with sites that require such a flow.

(nitpick to the overall thread but interesting)

There is at least one exception: On form 1040, you have a yes/no option to redirect $3 to the presidential election campaign fund. This does not affect the amount of your taxes; it's a personal funding choice.

I think it's a desperate attempt to downplay the severity in any way plausible, taking advantage of the fact that credit card numbers and social security numbers have been mythologized in the American consciousness as nearly-mystical totems of identity and security, as part of the "identity theft" meme, even though they play little role in actual information security or privacy.

Your contractor being breached means you were breached.

100% of the energy becomes heat eventually. For a typical trip, this happens by the trip conclusion. (And also each time the car pauses, such as a stoplight.)

For the trailer-on-hill example, it concludes when the trailer (eventually) is towed or rolls down the hill and comes to a rest from friction.

The weighted trailer is being used like a battery and modifies the situation in the same way as if it were a hybrid car (non-plug-in battery that recharges through regenerative braking and/or directly from the ICE).

Based on the release of multiple emulators in the App Store in the past few days (including Delta which looks like it is here to stay), it looks like I got this wrong. My original comment made sense to me based on my reading of the rules, but it looks like they really are allowing open-ended emulators that can load ROMs from anywhere.

I think mainly the ability to download additional games, and more specifically, games emulated from a different platform rather than game content written as HTML/JavaScript.

I may be wrong about the bundling in terms of the collection, but I still think this is more about Apple's general stance on "stores within an app", and the rule change is folding retro game emulators in as another exception to that, and not a change primarily about emulator allowability in general.