I also appreciate a minimalistic design, but it's universally agreed that limiting text to certain length improve readability. Yes, I can turn on firefox reader mode to fix it - and it will work well since the site itself is very simple. I can only assume that is the site-owner stance? But that's an extra click and I'm quite sure it would work well if the page itself did the minimal of centering and limiting the line length. (for those that prefer to read with read-mode like systems)
Even HN sucks so bad, I created my own CSS to use with Stylus plugin.
I don't want to spend even tiniest amount of time for CSS or spend few cents with AI for it either.
This is similar to badly designed sites make you click more than once to get a job done while once click is enough. (as It'd force me to style around his crappy site)
My problem is the opposite and there's no reader mode that turns off site design with about 8 words a line. Usually I have to delve into the markup to disable the right style.
"Universal acceptance" seems remarkably citation-free. AI cites back to Baymard which doesn't provide any actual published research article indicating the results.
> there's no reader mode that turns off site design with about 8 words a line
Firefox's reader mode allow you to set the line length. If the reader-mode is able to understand the page it should be able to increase the length as well?
> "Universal acceptance"
Looking into it bit more I concede there's no real research consensus for optimal range in the 50-100 character range. I could not find research for the 180 char length this site render on my laptop screen at reasonable font size.
(Research indicate that bigger line spacing is beneficial for long lines though.)
I agree. I feel if github was owned/run by people passionate about code and open source software, no code repos be banned, if not just because it's consuming resources contrary to the mission.
It is owned/run by Microsoft. The mission is the big tech mission: usage of any kind regardless of the impact on anything else, and profit.
I really want to know if someone can point to where it says this is ok in an unambiguous way. Reading the Antropic docs ir is not clear to me that they differentiate personal mitm proxies from proxies used to share the sub. And if they attempt to detect the latter and ban people, how can they properly distinguish the two even?
I've shared a sub with my husband for a long time, and we never ran into trouble.
Then I shared a sub with 3 people in total and we were detected within a few days.
I don't know what metrics they use, because I use my sub on a handful of servers and different IPs. But I'm guessing there's some kind of fingerprinting going on, where they can actually determine that prompts are being sent by different people
Spoiler, it's not clear by any means. There's no evidence to back up the claim, it's just their feelings... which is fine, but I definitely wouldn't call it clear.
Same here. I do think people should release some of this personal software eventually though. But having some restrain and waiting until it has properly proved useful and matured a bit does everyone a favor IMO
Jetbrains lost our entire (small) team a few years back when they completely neglected (no, to minimal progress for years) their typehint support in PyCharm. I think they now finally have caught up somewhat judging from the updated on all the issues in youtrack I'm still subscribed to.
reply