My colleagues having a chat about their favourite tv shows in the operations channel at 7am have entered the chat.

I know, but those techniques are more likely to cause selection weirdness than flexbox/etc, which is why I mention them specifically.

On mobile: multiple top and bottom tool/nav bars that automatically show/hide themselves when you scroll. They’re invariably more irritating than if they were just pinned at the top of the page (or perhaps viewport, but ideally page - I can scroll to the top of I want it back)

On desktop: animations tied to scrolling.

Anywhere: any kind of popup, modal, etc that I didn’t click on something to get. Please fuck alllllllll the way off.

The browser implements the text selection behaviour, but how infuriating it is depends on how convoluted your page construction is.

On a simple page with no floats, overlaid elements, negative margins, absolute positioning, hidden stuff, and other css layout tomfoolery, it’s perfectly predictable. It’s only when designers do designer things does it start to break down.

Gimme dat blowhole mod

Wow.

He looks like a plastic bag full of porridge with hair plugs.

Holy shit that’s too real. I come here to get away from work!

Lossless compression algorithms aren’t magical, they can’t make everything smaller (otherwise it would be possible to have two different bits of input data that compress to the same output). So they all make some data bigger and some data smaller, the trick is that the stuff they make smaller happens to match common patterns. Given truly random data, basically every lossless compression algorithm will make the data larger.

A good encryption algorithm will output data that’s effectively indistinguishable from randomness. It’s not the only consideration, but often the more random the output looks, the better the algorithm.

Put those two facts together and it’s pretty easy to see why you should compress first then encrypt.

Some kind of angry potato

Do they taste of borscht? I bet they taste of borscht.

No part. The part that’s clearly putin ball gargling behaviour is your commentary on it.

What in the russian propaganda bot fuckery is this?!

Lmao.

Technically speaking, things are far more secure today than they were back in the dawn of the internet. Protocols are now almost exclusively encrypted where they almost exclusively weren’t. Private communication is (in theory) easier to achieve.

Practically speaking, however, now there’s always somebody there attempting to monetise your interactions. To mine useful information from what you say, or to sell you something while you say it. Or both.

That’s only going to get worse with the rise of AI, as companies realise the vast databases of past interactions might actually be worth something.

Best you can really hope for these days is to retain some anonymity and some separation between your public personas.

You can trademark dictionary words.

You can’t trademark anything too generic, like you might struggle to trademark a drink called “drink” or something (although you might be able to trademark, eg, shoes called “drink”!), but there’s nothing stopping you trademarking words.

Oh, and, Adobe is an english word, too.

That’s an amusing name but if they take a photoshop competitor to market using that name they’re going to lose a trademark dispute in milliseconds.

                                 has entered the chat.

I mean yes I agree with all your points. But I stand by the assertion that it’s too expensive. I could handle $5/month, perhaps, but 300 searches is waaaay too few. That’s 10 per day. I did 10 searches this morning before I got out of bed.

For unlimited searches it’s twice the cost of a streaming service. Yet it has negligible bandwidth costs, and significantly less storage cost, probably less development cost. Sure a small user base too, but at that price they’re really going to struggle to grow it!

It’s really just too expensive.

Wow. I don’t mind paying for stuff if it’s good. But seriously $5/month seems pretty expensive, and you only get 300 searches. $25 for unlimited searches, which seems like an insane amount of money.