Mr. Satan

Did I write this?

I suppose there’s nuance in everything. That’s a fair criticism.

Listen man, we (as individuals) can’t care for or help everybody. Connect with the ones you care about and don’t harm everyone else. The fact that I don’t care about you, doesn’t mean we can’t coexist or even help each other.

Looking form another angle, why not wanting to socialize in stranger small talk is bad? Why I am expected to accommodate? Why can’t we just enjoy the silence in this hypothetical situation?

I see this sentiment more often than not. Me, as the less social party, is expected to move out of my comfort zone, but the person trying get me into a conversation isn’t expected do the same and just keep to themselves.

It doesn’t matter. If there is no free will, the illusion is strong enough to make me think that there is.

There is no way of proving if it’s chemistry, physics, will of god or actual free will. I feel like I have free will, it doesn’t matter what the truth is because the truth cannot break the illusion.

A brain can only make me feel free will and that’s all that matters practically.

The real answer is it doesn’t matter. I feel like I have free will hence I have free will for all meaningful intents and purposes.

Neither argument can be proven and even if it’s an illusion, it’s strong enough to make the truth irrelevant.

I hate small talk, because you (a stranger) do not interest me and I don’t care about trying to connect with you. I have neither the need nor the energy to try and am very comfortable just being in silence.

I small talk with people that I interact on a daily basis and need to communicate with (coworkers). Even then it heavily depends on how much energy I have.

I small talk with my friends and SO because I want to connect. So I put effort in to be present in the conversations.

It’s not right to lump small talk with a cashier, cab driver or a haircutter together with small talk with a friend or a partner.

I’ll have one zoom sideways to the left, please!

This is supported, but not integrated in bookmark lookup. I mean, if you hit ctrl+s, the browser will save currently rendered HTML. No crawling required. Hooking up some text indexing for search seems perfectly doable.

This would be a whole new pipeline to make interactivity work. Emulating a server with cached responses would allow to reuse the JS part of websites and is easier to do. I have no doubt that some pages wouldn’t work and there would be a shitton of security considerations I can’t imagine.

This “machine state” definition and manipulation is exactly the hard part of the concept. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’s a beast of a problem.

Our best current solutions are just dumb web crawler bots.

To me a simple page saving (ctrl+s) integration seems like a most realistic solution.

Ok, so your average site doesn’t download content directly. The initial load is just the framework required to fetch and render the content dynamically.
Short of just crawling the whole site, there is no real way to know what, when or why a thing is loaded into memory.
You can’t even be sure that some pages will stay the same after every single refresh.

Comparing it to saving the state of OS isn’t fair because the state is in one place. On the machine running the code. The difference here is that the state of the website is not in control of the browser and there’s no standard way to access it in a way that would allow what you’re describing.

Now, again, saving rendered HTML is trivial, but saving the whole state of a dynamic website require a full on web crawler and then not only loading saved pages and scripts, but also emulating the servers to fetch the data rendered.

What you’re describing is so much more difficult from a technical standpoint than you give it credit.

Static pages – sure, the plague of single page applications – oof, that’s a challenge.

I’m gonna burn in hell for my sense of humor…

I am confused… She’s clearly not talking about the motorcycle. What’s the other Davidson?

Most likely it’s just a validation not related to actual storage of the information.
It’s something that can happen automagically when using a library. I wouldn’t be too surprised if this length limitation is just a default of whatever registration solution they are using.

That’ just how the cookie crumbles.

Honestly I do remember some months, like starting and ending of the year. I don’t encounter English month names on a regular enough basis to remember their order and my month names in no way relate to English ones.

So anything after February and before August I have to google each time I encounter them.

It doesn’t help that we don’t even have month abbreviations like English does (Jan, Feb, etc.).

Jokes on you, I can’t fucking rember which English month is which. April, May, July and Autum is just a grey mass to me.

The Microsoft thing is entirely regional. It’s not that Microsoft does dates a certain way, it’s your regional defaults. I live in a country that does dates the ISO and the computer displays them thay way.

Someone once told me that american date format follows the same pattern as regular speech. Like "26th of April, 2004. It made some sense to me, but that still feels a silly reason to discard just the sorting benefits.

Judging from screenshots in this article, it doesn’t seem to loose or gain any functionality: all of the same controls are present.

With this in mind.
Who cares!? It’s neither good nor bad. It’s like the thing with playback line color. Yes, it’s different, no, I didn’t notice until some pointed it out, no, I couldn’t care less.