niknetniko

I don't get what this means?

- There an option to compress images before uploading (which is probably on by default). Not unreasonable.

- Content is deleted if you do not access Google Photos in any way during two years AND do not have a paid storage plan. Not unreasonable.

- If you use more storage than you pay for during two years, content will be deleted. Again, not unreasonable.

I really do no get the complaint here.

Of the top of my head, there are also:

- ISO 8601: dates and times

- ISO/IEC 9899: the C standard

- ISO/IEC 14882: the C++ standard

> This isn't how serious comp-sci standards work (the TCP people just throw out RFCs).

This isn't how most _web_ standards work.

Am I missing something here? I understand the "The IAB loves tracking users." part of the title, but where is the part about "But it hates users tracking them."? Based on the title, I would have expected an exception in their standard for themselves, or a story about how their own user tracking technology was used against them.

However, there is none of that. Just that the IAB does not want to make it easier for users to escape their tracking (which, given their purpose, is unfortunately entirely expected). What justifies "But it hates users tracking them."?

> I recently discovered a big cache - in terms of file number, 6000 files - of basically every edit I did in the last 6 months in VS Code - called Local History.

Isn't this a feature? I wouldn't want my editor to remove my local history without me knowing. I frequently use this local history (in Intellij), for whatever reason (it's easier than git, the project doesn't have version control, I haven't committed yet, ...)

> These apps [single page web applications] also tend to feel snappier because page loads are not required for every request.

This isn't my experience at all, especially when network conditions are not great. The browsers has error handling and a progress bar. Single page web applications often have bad or no error handling and you have no idea if the request failed, the code errored or something else went wrong. You need to refresh the whole page if something goes wrong, which results in having to load a ton of JS every again, negating all possible savings in time and data usage.

The site mentions:

> Visual Mind is an AI engine specifically designed for understanding and scoring visual appearance of a website. Visual Mind has analyzed over a million websites to achieve an accuracy rate of over 97%.

How does accuracy work in a project like this, where the result is subjective?

A lot of EE folks I've met _think_ they are competent in software, but I'd beg to differ. Similarly, I've met plenty of CS majors who know their way round hardware.

This is pretty cool.

However, I do agree with some of the other contents that the style is a little dry for a webpage.

I think it would be very useful as the "print" style for articles or blog posts, without having to pipe through pandoc: most browsers support print to pdf.

This is a really nice looking blog, I'm impressed.

Works for me, what's not mobile friendly about it?