This is why BitTorrent and other P2P solutions were invented, but alas: A. The RIAA, MPAA, and ESA have given these technologies a terrible reputation. B. Nobody likes to seed. Some kind of seeding-based crypto would have been a great incentive if cryptocurrency wasn't also demonized by now.

Part of the reason people don't/didn't like seeding is that many residential lines are so terribly asymmetric. If you had 100down/5up, seeding your torrent at a useful speed was often enough to degrade your connection into unusability.

I remember installing Snapchat one and immediately realizing how awful it was. Different corners had different functions. It needs to be illegal

Why rounded corners? Why a bookmarks bar at the bottom instead of a proper taskbar? Can we please stop copying MacOS?

I bet it's going to do the "pop out when you hover the mouse near an edge" thing that MacOS does that I hate too.

The corners are configurable, many people seem to prefer a dock over a toolbar, as to the edge, it does docking to the portion of the screen (half/quarter/third).

I can't wait for Apple's "emperor has no clothes" moment. Their status as industry leader has caused untold amounts of damage.

The fact that centering a div in CSS basically requires a doctorate is the entire reason I gave up on web dev.

If you think flex centering is the equivalent of "requires a doctorate" I'm not surprised you weren't cut out for web dev

Such venom.

I am sure the GP was just trying to be comedic.

Damn, that’s a harsh response

And well deserved.

So for those of us that consider this dead simple, can we just start adding CSS Ph.D on our CVs?

No, you also have to throw away 3-6 years of your life.

I don't know about that. I'm not a UI person, yet I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on CSS. I actually like it. So when I'm sick and tired of programming things, I've found myself recreating the layout of some site I liked by writing the CSS/HTML by hand. You learn pretty quick that way. It's a shame that all UI is now only allowed to be done with some library or other.

I was referring to the observation that getting a Ph.D. usually requires wasting 3-6 years of your life doing something tedious and useless (source: my time getting a Ph.D. in computer science)

Those years were called "IE 6"

was it only 6 years? felt like 20. surely it didn't qualify for early release for good behavior

My comment was partly tongue in cheek.

It did feel like 20 years, though.

According to Wikipedia, it was initially released in 2001 … which … seems later than I remember? I don't remember upgrading to it, but I guess Win 98 came with IE 5? But +20 years would be 2021 so … I guess it wasn't quite. I was using Firefox by at least 2006, maybe 2007 at the latest.

The simple version is buried halfway down the article, but:

    .container {
       display: grid;
       place-content: center;
    }

isn't so bad.

The container is body, does not need a class in the simple version.

The problem is it was easy to center things with tables. Then once CSS was popular, that was the "wrong way" to handle layout. I find CSS the worst part of web development, and it's what turned me off of front-end work. Glad flexbox has finally made things simpler again.

I like CSS but I'd agree that tables got a bad rap. They were very easy, very effective, and only occasionally turned into a nightmare of nesting that was impossible to maintain

My problem with CSS now is that it's gotten too bloated to the point where it's introducing privacy and security risks. I really want an add-on that restricts CSS by default to only a sane subset of features.

Using tables for layouts is an accessibility nightmare.

They're also awful to maintain over time, if you're needing to add new elements and require new columns or cells (and then there's the need to nest tables when using them for layout).

I attempted to fix a website by adding closing table cells that were missing, and finally got the page to validate as XHTML Strict and Transitional. The entire layout shifted, and was completely based on those missing end tags.

it's really not. It requires adding a single attribute to tables that exist for layout.

What attribute? And how do you affect the reading order? Say on a page with a side navigation?

How does that solve anything? Your dom order is still tied to your presentation.

Google for "The Web is Ruined and I Ruined It" written by the guy who first came up with the idea to use tables for layout.

There weren't really many other options in the 90's.

Not the point. The point was that some people still think there is nothing wrong with using tables for layout. The guy who started it all would like to have a word with them.

I empathize! It used to, but no longer, so give it another shot! :)

It requires single-digit minutes of work. I don't have a doctorate but I gather that it is rather more difficult.

It's about as hard as in any frontend framework, native or non native.

Did you read the article? Specifically the Flexbox example.

Why haven't we seen something like Bandcamp or GOG but for film/TV?

GOG made a brief effort to expand into movies almost a decade ago but stopped because the industry revolved around regional restrictions (they asked customers if they should keep going with regional restrictions and customers said no). There are some reginal restrictions on GOG and Bandcamp but nothing like would be necessary for the movie industry it sounds like. I don't know if focusing entirely on indie films would avoid this issue or if even they end up agreeing to regional restrictions.

Not sure, I would love to see it too. I bought some things on Vimeo over the years which does offer DRM-free downloads (if enabled, otherwise yt-dlp is your friend), but it's really just some indie and crowdfunded projects.

I guess the industry thinks pay-per-view platforms like Amazon, YouTube, etc. are good enough?

Movie publishers aren't interested in offering DRM-free content.

I've had this idea for something in between Gemini and the modern web that's essentially supposed to capture how the web was in the late 90s/early 00s. Basically just HTML/CSS with GET and POST, no scripting at all.

I don't have the expertise to write this, unfortunately.

That's literally just "writing basic HTML and not using Javascript."

You can still totally just do that, no one is stopping you.

But even if you went the whole Gemini route and published a custom protocol to be explicitly incompatable with HTTP and a spec supporting only early HTML, you still wouldn't be able to capture the early web, because it isn't the 1990s anymore.

I really do hate how it's just assumed we know what's clickable and what isn't.

I've always wondered something, are Dpaint's pixels supposed to be character sized? I know that pixels aren't always necessarily square, but Dpaint seems to exaggerate that a lot.

The Amiga had a few graphics modes with rectangular pixels, some upright (e.g. 640x200) and some across (e.g. 320x400, both are NTSC modes). That would be 256 or 512 vertical pixels on PAL machines, respectively.

Were they actually rectangular or was that an artifact of the hold and modify color mode? I mostly remember playing with dpaint and f18 interceptor in the a1000.

The pixels were actually rectangular. Imagine that 640x400 has square pixels (which it pretty much does on a then-contemporary screen). When you have half the amount of vertical pixels at 640x200, you can either have square pixels at half the image height, or double the height of the pixels (making them rectangular) and fill the entire vertical space.

CRT TV screens and monitors come in a 4:3 aspect ratio, so you need 320x240 or 640x480 for a "true" square pixel grid. (Unless you manually adjusted the horizontal and vertical stretch on the monitor to letterbox the image, but very few people would've done that). None of the common screen resolutions on the Amiga matches that exactly, though the 320x256 and 640x512 (interlaced) PAL resolutions were reasonably close for casual purposes.

> were reasonably close for casual purposes.

That's pretty much what I was going for.