That would actually fix some ugly CSS I have. The demo works. Neat.
Except... the demo doesn't use either the old syntax or the new syntax. The browser support is wrong (Firefox doesn't support it, the site says Firefox 16+; it says Chrome 43+ but in reality it's much newer: Chrome 148+). It says "Since 2018" but the spec was introduced in 2024.
So maybe an interesting overview of things that might be available or might not, but the filtering and data on the site doesn't seem to be useful.
Firefox is pretty irrelevant nowadays. They've dragged their feet for years when it comes to implementing new stuff, and now web devs don't even bother checking Firefox. Because devs know it won't work on ancient browsers, no need to confirm.
My personal trigger events were when Firefox didn't optimize DataView for the longest time, initially refused to implement import maps, and couldn't get WebGPU support done. At that point I lost interest in supporting it.
"widely available" has a precise meaning that includes Firefox (both desktop and Android). it might be irrelevant for some, but let's not twist industry definitions
This website says certain features work on firefox. But they don't. You can disregard firefox if you like. But if this "Modern CSS Code Snippets" website explicitly tells me their snippets work in firefox, I expect the snippets to work in firefox. Many of them do not.
again, "widely available" should not be intended in the general sense but as a much more precise industry term. "Baseline widely available" is defined[1] as a feature which has been available on all the core browsers (Chrome desktop and Android, Edge, Firefox desktop and Android, Safari on Mac and iOS) for two and a half years
I don't really care about someones phony definition of widely available. If it runs on 90% of user's browsers, it's widely available. I'll gladly make a web page that puts this definition online so that you can also reference it in discussions, if you want.
Firefox could (should?) be better in several aspects but it seems excessive to say it is pretty irrelevant.
It has 4.5% market share in Europe, 9% in Germany (statcounter numbers).
It is the browser that got the Google Labs folks to write a Rust jxl decoder for it, and now, thanks in part to that, Chrome is re-adding support for jxl.
You can be unhappy with Firefox (I often am myself), and Firefox HAS lost relevance, but can you really say it has become pretty irrelevant?
It's 2026, the most useful stuff was implemented over a decade ago. Stop trying to make the web platform do everything when it wasn't designed for that.
It doesn't matter what it was designed for 30 years ago. Computers also weren't designed to be put in your pocket, yet here we are. Things evolve, and browsers that do not keep up will eventually stop being used.
Also one of the features that I want -- scrollbar-gutter: stable -- is shown everywhere as being stable for many Safari versions, but when I try it it just didn't work. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Opus is definitely in its own league. I use Kimi/Gemini-cli code regularly to save cost and from my experience, Kimi 2.5 is more solid than Gemini Flash 3.0 for coding. While Gemini Flash 3.0 is generally faster, it usually break the syntax and skip important prompt. Kimi 2.5 can write very good code and can plan very well.
I've been using kimi, though not kimiclaw, for research and it is good - comparable to phind, better than GLM 4.7 . Opus 4.6 wasn't as good for my particular domain of interest. I think the long term pricing asymptote for US vs china is essentially dependent on energy pricing and so china will continue to undercut US AI pricing.
Did you scroll through the pricing options? The largest Kimi plan is $199/month. “Much better” depends on how much usage is included vs. Anthropic plans/API costs.
They're not tally marks, it's just a different way of encoding a positional number system representation. You would get the same effect if instead of writing zeroes you left empty spaces. 2_4 + 1_3_ = 1234. If you were writing in columns you would not need the additional glyph.
(creator here) +1, the different digits add trivially as you say.
I also thought it was fun that when you overlay digits, you do get 1+4=5, 1+6=7, 1+8=9, 2+6=8, and 2+7=9 . That one I only found accidentally after a bit of playing, so the demo note is more of a fun side note than a really useful property.
> I guess this would always work with tally marks.
This script overlays the marks, it doesn’t put them side by side. So, in the strict sense, this does not work with tally marks. If you write a tally mark on top of another tally mark, you won’t get two tally marks.
> Is there a more complex number system where visual feedback like this always works?
No. The “+1” operator would have to add the encoding for the number one to whatever number you apply it to, so starting at 1, the numbers would have to grow larger every time.
(Similarly, since “+2” must be identical to applying “+1” twice, it must add whatever “+1” adds twice, “+3” must do that thrice, etc)
Which part addresses the “without killing yourself”?
This is a hyperbole too, right? As in: incorrect belt sing would only be lethal in extreme scenarios and otherwise it would be harmful at most; is that the case?
Only epakai has mentioned altitude so far. I’m athletic and once took a cable car up to 5000m. At the top I started walking on the flat trail and was out of breath in a minute or two and had to stop.
I guess rest of the world should take notes and adjust the approach to China and those segments of Westerd society where totalitarianism got normalized.
I get it why an article like this is being posted, but I’m also worried that it’s jumping to conclusions.
Devs/support get overwhelmed, apps get buggy. A better course of action to me seems: reporting a broken app, requesting refund, waiting for the fix and switching to an alternative in the meantime.
I also dislike that this behavior could be a reason against sideloading, especially if made more popular.
It worked for years with no/few changes. Then the price increases and pro features stop working.
I'm not too likely to give the devs the benefit of the doubt. Patch out the 'pro' check and release an update. Or reply to one of the many new 1 star reviews and say you lost access to the source code, if that's what happened.
They seem to have pulled it, I can't find it on my Pixel.
I paid for it in 2014, and it hasn't been updated in about half of that time, they removed the cloud key backup at some point without notification so I lost all of the keys I had stored, and last time I used it, it didn't even recognise I had paid for it.
I still don’t get it. You say it yourself that it worked for years with no issues. Current behavior is bad but the community pirating the app does not seem right either.
Popular apps get away with more user hostility and price gouging. To me this effort seems misplaced.
I know, my point is this doesn’t give you the right to pirate the app. You have legal ways to fight it: request a refund, report it to the store, write a review, advocate for an open source alternative, etc.
People have shared that many of those things didn't work, developers don't care about reviews of an abandoned app, refund process probably costs you more in time than you would get, and Google is not really known for their good support.
You shouldn't go through that much effort for something you already paid and obviously malicious/unethical approach caused you problems. If there are things in favour of piracy, it is in cases like this.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. At the same time piracy in this case feels short sighted to me.
If the community supported the dev, then both might get what they want, i.e. a maintained app and some income. With negative reviews a cheaper competitor might appear due to demand. But with piracy the app is even more likely to get abandoned and no alternative will show up either.
Then again if the ecosystem is indeed that bad, perhaps this is the way to torch it even more. Still, google plans to block sideloading and then I guess we’re at their mercy.
Do you consider it piracy when the user paid for a lifetime license, which then quits working, so the user modifies the app to keep the feature working?
Wow. This sucks. Look at how they gloat about how much they change the way they shoot to suit the technology. These kinds of technologies that box film makers in are surely contributing to the boring same-y-ness of modern film and tv.
There are studios that specialize in this kind of virtual production, and it’s appealing to producers because it’s (theoretically) cheaper than doing things in post.
Not if you filter the examples. Click "widely available".
reply