The cryptography can be upgraded with a fork. So a fix is painful but possible.
Great, so your fork it with a crypto fix? Meanwhile, what about all the people that got screwed because their wallets got emptied before the hack was discovered, or during the time between when the public becomes aware of the vulnerability and when it's actually patched? Billions or trillions of dollars up for the taking. So what are we going to do with the fork? Have it revert all those transactions? How far back do we go to revert it? And what about all the people that then get screwed on legit transactions that get rolled back? (but I thought it was supposed to be a guaranteed payment method) And do we just shut down all worldwide commerce until the vulnerability is patched and the patch is rolled out to everyone? And how quickly do we try to push out that patch vs spending lots of time vetting it so we don't end up with another Ethereum situation where the patch to fix one vulnerability ended up introducing another vulnerability?
Yeah, I think "painful" is a pretty generous characterization of the the process.
Banks and other payment processors are currently taking about 3% of all the money spent on the internet
3% you say? Well, for one that seems a little high, but lets cut you some slack and go with that. What's the BTC transaction fee going to cost you for a $5 purchase at Starbucks, or even a $100 purchase at Walmart? Last I heard, it was a heck of a lot more than 3%, and that's with barely anybody using it for small transactions. Ramp it up so that everyone needs to fight for that block transaction space and 3% will seem like a dream.
So that's why BTC is barely ever used for small transactions these days. It's much more commonly used for large transactions. But guess what...with that old fashioned fiat currency everyone seems to hate, the vast majority of large transactions do not take place through the credit card systems. It's done through the regular banking systems of EFTs, where the transaction cost is generally calculated in pennies, not percent. So even there, it beats BTC on transaction fees.
And just about everyone who earns a wage, since many do not get raises that accurately reflect real inflation. Shit, I haven't even got raises to cover the bullshit low ball official inflation rate that these crooks publish - I don't know about you but the price of a hamburger has gone up a lot more in the past 10 years than my income.
LOL. And so what do you think is going to happen in this magical world where bitcoin has become the gloabel currency? You think everything is just going to be great because, hey, even if you don't get a raise, you haven't lost buying power? Yeah, sure...keep dreeming.
A year ago you were getting paid 1 bitcoin per week. At a $750 value, you were making a little under $40k a year. Now a year later bitcoin is at $11k. Do you think your boss is going to be paying you the equivalent of over $500k per year? Keep dreaming. No, it's going to be " limaxray, you were a stellar performer this year. That's why we're only cutting your salary by 93%". Or actually, more realistically you'd be called into the bosses office on a weekly basis for your pay-cut-of-the-week because bitcoin is deflating so fast.
You want to know the other gem about a deflating currency? What is most people's biggest expense these days? You might say kids, which may be true if you count college tuition 18 years down the road and don't consider scholarships. But no, on a month to month basis, most people's biggest expense is usually a home mortgage.
So last year you just moved into that brand new $125k house on your $40k salary, with a $700/month mortgage payment, right? Nope wrong...because it's bitcoin world now baby!!!!!!! You moved into that 166 bitcoin house on your 1 bitcoin per week salary, and had a monthly mortgage payment of 0.93 bitcoins per month. But that was a year ago, and remember, your boss just gave you a stellar annual paycut of ONLY 93%. So you now make 0.07 BTC per week, or 0.28 BTC per month. That's alright because the cost of living has decreased right along with your wages, right? Oh, but that's right...your mortgage payment is still 0.93 BTC per month. Yep, your mortgage now consumes ONLY 330% of your income.
The subject line: "100 billion in wealth forever idle". That and the association of bezos to gates and buffet implies that bezos money will be forever idle just like the other 2. But the other 2 have actually pledged to do plenty with their money.
Did you try mythbuntu? It makes setup extremely easy.
I personally use a custom built mythtv setup because I like to customized things extensively, and like to know how everything thats there interacts. In doing so, I can say I agree that it could be difficult for a lot of people to get it working well. But the few times I've messed with Ubuntu just for the heck of it, it works pretty darn well with minimal effort
You seem to not be aware that buffet and gates have both pledged to give the vast majority of their wealth to charities in their lifetime. Both are well underway with that plan already. In fact, Bezos is only #1 now because gates has already given away close to $30b. Bezos is still building his fortune, but hopefully he too will one day make the same pledge to use his fortune for charitable purposes.
So Tulips and Beanie Babies. I didn't even know what hey were and had to look them up. If that is you basis for financial advice I'd find another hobby.
No, as I said there are plenty of examples. You set the goalposts, I kicked the field goal just to humor you, now you want to move them. I'm not interested in playing that game.
Yes, there are places where there has been that sort of crash, where houses went to nothing. Mostly, those were shit places where people were putting all their eggs in one basket...and if one company or one industry collapsed it took everything else with it because there was nothing else there. There's always big risks in moving into areas like that. It's a very localized and extremely volatile bubble. If you look someplace more reasonable like Detroit, yeah things went to shit there, but there's thousands of companies in hundreds of industries. People lost money on homes, for sure, but most people never even came close to losing everything they had over it. Most homes in most areas have recovered a significant portion of their peak value.
Bitcoin has nothing about it making it inherently valuable and relatively stable like a home in most areas.
Sorry, but I don't buy the anti-bank, anti-government angle.
What's the problem with banks? They don't do anything inherently wrong with dollars that they couldn't also do with bitcoin. Charge insane interest rates on loans? Guess what...the people that can't control their spending of dollars will not be able to control their spending of bitcoins. So it'll be the same thing. Banks will be lending out bitcoins and gouging people. Or is because of the things they do like the housing market crash? Guess what...they'll still package up those bad debts and sell them fraudulently for bitcoins all the same. Bitcoin does not solve any sort of bank problem.
What's the problem with governments? They could collapse, taking the value of the currency with it? And you don't think it's possible for BTC to collapse either? Sorry, but I beleive it's a lot more likely for BTC to collapse in the next 100 years than the dollar. Or is your problem with governemnt printing currency and causing inflation. Well, we could certainly eliminate that problem simply by going back to the gold standard. And those of us who research history know what glory-days those days were back then. I can't wait to get back to those days with the upcoming bitcoin gold (no pun intended) standard
Beanie babies. Happy now? Yes, there were actually quite a few people who lost a ton of money on those.
There's plenty more whre that came from, but the reason everyone always mentions tulips is because, of all the many many bubbles that have happened in history, tulips is perhaps the most outrageous example so far. As a bubble, it's probably just as stupid as beanie babies, but a lot more people lost a lot more money (relative for the time) on tulips. And those of us who feel BTC is a bubble choose the tulip example because of how crazy people are going over this. It feels like it has the makings of an event that could displace tulips in history.
And at least tulips could make your yard look pretty if you got caught holding the bag at the collapse. What are you going to do with BTC if the whole thing crashes down and you don't get out?
Yes, its still hidden even if its in open source. By your thinking, the idea of a "hidden fee" wouldn't exist anywhere in the world. After all, for the fee to be enforceable, it has to be clearly spelled out in English between other English words in the contract (please substitute "English" with your language of choice). Since its clearly spelled out in the contract, it can't be hidden. No, the term "hidden fee" is generally used to refer to any fee which, while clearly spelled out in the contract", is not clearly advertised on the package, in the marketing, or pretty much anywhere other than the "fine print"
Yes, its still hidden even if its in open source. By your thinking, the idea of a "hidden fee" wouldn't exist anywhere in the world. After all, for the fee to be enforceable, it has to be clearly spelled out in English between other English words in the contract (please substitute "English" with your language of choice). Since its clearly spelled out in the contract, it can't be hidden.
No, the term "hidden fee" is generally used to refer to any fee which, while clearly spelled out in the contract", is not clearly advertised on the package, in the marketing, or pretty much anywhere other than the "fine print"
So I was reading up on Bitcoin gold the other day. I'm not familiar with how the previous forks like bitcoin cash worked, but for BC gold I read that after the fork, the first 80000 coins are going to be pre-mined by the developers. Seems like a pretty big reward for a rather small change.
Wow, I thought we were having a reasonable conversation. Then you had to just go total asshole.
I don't need to justify anything. Nintendo knows how to make fun games. Their track record is proven enough for me, such that I'd buy any console they make even if the only game they made for it was a single Zelda game, and I'd consider it money well spent, no justification needed. As luck would be, Zelda is never the only game, and every system is well worth the investment. I've also got an XB1, and yet I've spent at least 10 times as much time playing the Switch as I did the XB1. Just as I played my Wii U at least 10 times as much as my Xbox 360, and my original Wii 10 times as much as the 360, and my GameCube 10x as much as my Xbox , PS 2, or Dreamcast.
FYI...the reason I had to fire up the console is that I've personally only spent a couple of hours playing Mario so far...90% of the time I've "played" it has been watching my daughter play it and working through the levels with her at the controls (it's a family experience that, for some reason, only Nintendo knows how to do well). So off the top of my head, I couldn't name every move that could be done, and I've never played the game in handheld mode, so I just wanted to check. You know...just so I didn't end up being an asshole like you and spouting off something that isn't true.
No need to vigorously shake anything. Small movements work. And it's not like the console is made of fragile parts that will bounce around and break. It's solid. It can handle a vigorous shake if that's how you choose to play.
Could they map them to a different button? Possibly. I haven't thought about what would work, what would interfere with the usability of other button-combo moves, and I certainly haven't done any sort of play testing with different combo's as I'm sure they have. So I really can't speak to what they could have done.
The circle hat throw? Just jerk the whole console to the side. It works just fine. When I read your first post, I actually believed what you posted at first. I thought "wow, that's a horrible oversight". So I grabbed the console, looked at the moves in the actio guide, noticed you seemed to be wrong, and tested each one before my first reply. It all works. It's perhaps a bit awkward for the reasons I previously stated, but it does indeed work.
Sorry, but you are just wrong on that. Odyssey does not have any moves that can not be done in handheld mode. Press + to bring up the menu, then scan through the action guide. It explains how to do every move in both 2 controller and single controller mode. Every single move either has a buttons-only mechanism you can use to trigger it, or it requires the exact same motion from both controllers so that you can trigger the move by just moving the entire unit.
Granted, shaking the whole thing in handheld mode is a little awkward, and the fact that there's no wrist strap option for handheld mode makes it a little more risky, but every move is possible in handheld mode.
If your website can't withstand a slight change in font rendering, how the hell do you expect your website to hold up for people who override the style sheet for accessibility? You DO know that's a thing, right? It's basically what the C in CSS is all about.
Or perhaps this should be the free square on why you read the post before replying to it. Read my post again. As I mentioned, this particular chrome change ONLY applies for event listeners that are bound to the window, document, or body. It's a pretty general rule that any type of listener should be scoped to only listen to the minimum required amount of events. When you bind to window, document, or body, you are pretty much saying GIVE ME EVERYTHING. So now you get called for every event...even those you couldn't possibly be the slightest bit interested in. Best programming practice is generally to scope your event listeners so that they only get called in cases where you might possibly be interested in handling them.
Lets look at a simple case....a webpage where the body contains 2 divs (divA and divB). In divA, you want to handle an event and perform some custom handling, possibly even cancel the the event with preventDefault. In divB, you never care about the event, so your event handler is always going to do nothing.
If you bind your event handler to divA, then whenever that event occurs in divB your event handler will never even be call. That's perfect...you aren't interested so lets not even waste time asking if you want to do anything. But if you bind your event handler to the body/document/window, your event handler is going to be needlessly called so that it can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (except waste CPU time) every time the event occurs in divB.
So that was my point...based on what I've read my gut instinct is to say that this would pretty much only affect web pages where the programmer was too sloppy/lazy to properly scope their event handler to the parts of the DOM where they're actually interested in doing something about that event.
But of course, I admit that I may certainly be overlooking cases where this isn't the case, and there's absolutely no way to implement it without throwing an event handler on the window/document/body. And that is why I humbly asked for examples where I was wrong and this is the only way to do it. I will note that you provided precisely zero example of such. Maps and reorderable lists can certainly have their event handlers properly scoped instead of just throwing them on the window/document/body
Yeah, I'm finding it a little difficult to get worked up about this. It's been this way for over half a year and I haven't noticed anything broken by it. And honestly I'm having a bit of difficulty imagining how a website could legitimately use this sort of eventListener and not be a prime example of sloppy coding. Yes it might've worked by the standard...I understand that. But really...listening for scroll events at the window, document, or body level? Can someone give me a good example of how this is used and couldn't be done better? Some of the "broken things" examples given in the linked article: Drag an drop list? Your list should be contained in some div or ul element and you should apply the listener at that wrapper level, not listen to ALL scroll events on the ENTIRE document. Sliders? Same. Maps? Same. Yes, it might have worked before by listening to all body events, but really that's just shit design.
So I feel like a better description would be more like "google broke 50% of the shitty websites, but not the well designed ones". But please, I welcome an example to show me where there are good reasons to do this.
I'd love to see what you got that couldn't be solved by you. I've personally never seen on that was not fairly easily deducible what they were asking for. I have seen one that I consider "wrong". It asked you to click on all of the apartments. Only one was obviously an apartment, but it told me I was wrong. One was a commercial building, but it appeared to be the type you'd see in some downtown area that might have an apartment located above the store (though you couldn't see the apartment itself in the picture). So I added that one too, but it still said I was wrong. There was a 3rd one that was a residential building, though clearly was not an apartment (looked to be a standalone, single family residence), but I figured they must've been classifying it as one too. Once I picked all 3, it accepted it.
It's a cat and mouse game and it will never really end.
Not sure if you intended it, but the pun there is that I'm pretty certain some forms of captchas (especial those single checkbox "I am not a bot" ones) actually examine the mouse movements and use that to help determine if you are likely a human.
Not "last". It was "least". "Find the least real zero of this polynomial". Then the problem was something like "(x-4)(x+2)(x-1)". This is a common algebra problem, though usually it is presented in a non-factored form of "ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d" and you have to factor into the above form. Typically you are asked to find all of the values of x which would make it equal to zero. In the above example, there are 3 possible values of x....4, -2, and 1. When x is equal to any of those 3 values, the whole thing is zero. So asking your for the least means they just want the -2.
The reason for the word "real" is because I suppose depending on the particular problem, there could be some imaginary results which would solve it, too (in case you aren't familiar, imaginary numbers are represented by "i" and are equal to the square root of -1) , and they don't want those...just the least of the real solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
The cryptography can be upgraded with a fork. So a fix is painful but possible.
Great, so your fork it with a crypto fix? Meanwhile, what about all the people that got screwed because their wallets got emptied before the hack was discovered, or during the time between when the public becomes aware of the vulnerability and when it's actually patched? Billions or trillions of dollars up for the taking. So what are we going to do with the fork? Have it revert all those transactions? How far back do we go to revert it? And what about all the people that then get screwed on legit transactions that get rolled back? (but I thought it was supposed to be a guaranteed payment method) And do we just shut down all worldwide commerce until the vulnerability is patched and the patch is rolled out to everyone? And how quickly do we try to push out that patch vs spending lots of time vetting it so we don't end up with another Ethereum situation where the patch to fix one vulnerability ended up introducing another vulnerability?
Yeah, I think "painful" is a pretty generous characterization of the the process.
Banks and other payment processors are currently taking about 3% of all the money spent on the internet
3% you say? Well, for one that seems a little high, but lets cut you some slack and go with that. What's the BTC transaction fee going to cost you for a $5 purchase at Starbucks, or even a $100 purchase at Walmart? Last I heard, it was a heck of a lot more than 3%, and that's with barely anybody using it for small transactions. Ramp it up so that everyone needs to fight for that block transaction space and 3% will seem like a dream.
So that's why BTC is barely ever used for small transactions these days. It's much more commonly used for large transactions. But guess what...with that old fashioned fiat currency everyone seems to hate, the vast majority of large transactions do not take place through the credit card systems. It's done through the regular banking systems of EFTs, where the transaction cost is generally calculated in pennies, not percent. So even there, it beats BTC on transaction fees.
And just about everyone who earns a wage, since many do not get raises that accurately reflect real inflation. Shit, I haven't even got raises to cover the bullshit low ball official inflation rate that these crooks publish - I don't know about you but the price of a hamburger has gone up a lot more in the past 10 years than my income.
LOL. And so what do you think is going to happen in this magical world where bitcoin has become the gloabel currency? You think everything is just going to be great because, hey, even if you don't get a raise, you haven't lost buying power? Yeah, sure...keep dreeming.
A year ago you were getting paid 1 bitcoin per week. At a $750 value, you were making a little under $40k a year. Now a year later bitcoin is at $11k. Do you think your boss is going to be paying you the equivalent of over $500k per year? Keep dreaming. No, it's going to be " limaxray, you were a stellar performer this year. That's why we're only cutting your salary by 93%". Or actually, more realistically you'd be called into the bosses office on a weekly basis for your pay-cut-of-the-week because bitcoin is deflating so fast.
You want to know the other gem about a deflating currency? What is most people's biggest expense these days? You might say kids, which may be true if you count college tuition 18 years down the road and don't consider scholarships. But no, on a month to month basis, most people's biggest expense is usually a home mortgage.
So last year you just moved into that brand new $125k house on your $40k salary, with a $700/month mortgage payment, right? Nope wrong...because it's bitcoin world now baby!!!!!!! You moved into that 166 bitcoin house on your 1 bitcoin per week salary, and had a monthly mortgage payment of 0.93 bitcoins per month. But that was a year ago, and remember, your boss just gave you a stellar annual paycut of ONLY 93%. So you now make 0.07 BTC per week, or 0.28 BTC per month. That's alright because the cost of living has decreased right along with your wages, right? Oh, but that's right...your mortgage payment is still 0.93 BTC per month. Yep, your mortgage now consumes ONLY 330% of your income.
Isn't a deflationary currency grand?
Perfectly fine...except for the fact it insists on stupidly replacing perfectly fine ASCII apostrophes with fancy Unicode ones.
The subject line: "100 billion in wealth forever idle". That and the association of bezos to gates and buffet implies that bezos money will be forever idle just like the other 2. But the other 2 have actually pledged to do plenty with their money.
Did you try mythbuntu? It makes setup extremely easy.
I personally use a custom built mythtv setup because I like to customized things extensively, and like to know how everything thats there interacts. In doing so, I can say I agree that it could be difficult for a lot of people to get it working well. But the few times I've messed with Ubuntu just for the heck of it, it works pretty darn well with minimal effort
You seem to not be aware that buffet and gates have both pledged to give the vast majority of their wealth to charities in their lifetime. Both are well underway with that plan already. In fact, Bezos is only #1 now because gates has already given away close to $30b. Bezos is still building his fortune, but hopefully he too will one day make the same pledge to use his fortune for charitable purposes.
So Tulips and Beanie Babies. I didn't even know what hey were and had to look them up. If that is you basis for financial advice I'd find another hobby.
No, as I said there are plenty of examples. You set the goalposts, I kicked the field goal just to humor you, now you want to move them. I'm not interested in playing that game.
But no-one ever won the game by not playing.
WOPR would disagree with you.
Yes, there are places where there has been that sort of crash, where houses went to nothing. Mostly, those were shit places where people were putting all their eggs in one basket...and if one company or one industry collapsed it took everything else with it because there was nothing else there. There's always big risks in moving into areas like that. It's a very localized and extremely volatile bubble. If you look someplace more reasonable like Detroit, yeah things went to shit there, but there's thousands of companies in hundreds of industries. People lost money on homes, for sure, but most people never even came close to losing everything they had over it. Most homes in most areas have recovered a significant portion of their peak value.
Bitcoin has nothing about it making it inherently valuable and relatively stable like a home in most areas.
Sorry, but I don't buy the anti-bank, anti-government angle.
What's the problem with banks? They don't do anything inherently wrong with dollars that they couldn't also do with bitcoin. Charge insane interest rates on loans? Guess what...the people that can't control their spending of dollars will not be able to control their spending of bitcoins. So it'll be the same thing. Banks will be lending out bitcoins and gouging people. Or is because of the things they do like the housing market crash? Guess what...they'll still package up those bad debts and sell them fraudulently for bitcoins all the same. Bitcoin does not solve any sort of bank problem.
What's the problem with governments? They could collapse, taking the value of the currency with it? And you don't think it's possible for BTC to collapse either? Sorry, but I beleive it's a lot more likely for BTC to collapse in the next 100 years than the dollar. Or is your problem with governemnt printing currency and causing inflation. Well, we could certainly eliminate that problem simply by going back to the gold standard. And those of us who research history know what glory-days those days were back then. I can't wait to get back to those days with the upcoming bitcoin gold (no pun intended) standard
Beanie babies. Happy now? Yes, there were actually quite a few people who lost a ton of money on those.
There's plenty more whre that came from, but the reason everyone always mentions tulips is because, of all the many many bubbles that have happened in history, tulips is perhaps the most outrageous example so far. As a bubble, it's probably just as stupid as beanie babies, but a lot more people lost a lot more money (relative for the time) on tulips. And those of us who feel BTC is a bubble choose the tulip example because of how crazy people are going over this. It feels like it has the makings of an event that could displace tulips in history.
And at least tulips could make your yard look pretty if you got caught holding the bag at the collapse. What are you going to do with BTC if the whole thing crashes down and you don't get out?
Why do you care? Do you just randomly ask other posters why they chose whichever word they started a sentence with?
Yes, its still hidden even if its in open source. By your thinking, the idea of a "hidden fee" wouldn't exist anywhere in the world. After all, for the fee to be enforceable, it has to be clearly spelled out in English between other English words in the contract (please substitute "English" with your language of choice). Since its clearly spelled out in the contract, it can't be hidden.
No, the term "hidden fee" is generally used to refer to any fee which, while clearly spelled out in the contract", is not clearly advertised on the package, in the marketing, or pretty much anywhere other than the "fine print"
Yes, its still hidden even if its in open source. By your thinking, the idea of a "hidden fee" wouldn't exist anywhere in the world. After all, for the fee to be enforceable, it has to be clearly spelled out in English between other English words in the contract (please substitute "English" with your language of choice). Since its clearly spelled out in the contract, it can't be hidden.
No, the term "hidden fee" is generally used to refer to any fee which, while clearly spelled out in the contract", is not clearly advertised on the package, in the marketing, or pretty much anywhere other than the "fine print"
So I was reading up on Bitcoin gold the other day. I'm not familiar with how the previous forks like bitcoin cash worked, but for BC gold I read that after the fork, the first 80000 coins are going to be pre-mined by the developers. Seems like a pretty big reward for a rather small change.
Wow, I thought we were having a reasonable conversation. Then you had to just go total asshole.
I don't need to justify anything. Nintendo knows how to make fun games. Their track record is proven enough for me, such that I'd buy any console they make even if the only game they made for it was a single Zelda game, and I'd consider it money well spent, no justification needed. As luck would be, Zelda is never the only game, and every system is well worth the investment. I've also got an XB1, and yet I've spent at least 10 times as much time playing the Switch as I did the XB1. Just as I played my Wii U at least 10 times as much as my Xbox 360, and my original Wii 10 times as much as the 360, and my GameCube 10x as much as my Xbox , PS 2, or Dreamcast.
FYI...the reason I had to fire up the console is that I've personally only spent a couple of hours playing Mario so far...90% of the time I've "played" it has been watching my daughter play it and working through the levels with her at the controls (it's a family experience that, for some reason, only Nintendo knows how to do well). So off the top of my head, I couldn't name every move that could be done, and I've never played the game in handheld mode, so I just wanted to check. You know...just so I didn't end up being an asshole like you and spouting off something that isn't true.
No need to vigorously shake anything. Small movements work. And it's not like the console is made of fragile parts that will bounce around and break. It's solid. It can handle a vigorous shake if that's how you choose to play.
Could they map them to a different button? Possibly. I haven't thought about what would work, what would interfere with the usability of other button-combo moves, and I certainly haven't done any sort of play testing with different combo's as I'm sure they have. So I really can't speak to what they could have done.
The circle hat throw? Just jerk the whole console to the side. It works just fine. When I read your first post, I actually believed what you posted at first. I thought "wow, that's a horrible oversight". So I grabbed the console, looked at the moves in the actio guide, noticed you seemed to be wrong, and tested each one before my first reply. It all works. It's perhaps a bit awkward for the reasons I previously stated, but it does indeed work.
The reason Proof of Stake isn't popular is because it's a "rich get richer, poor may as well not play" system, just like capitalism.
Because we know that with Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work system, it's the poor that can afford racks full of ASIC miners, right?
Sorry, but you are just wrong on that. Odyssey does not have any moves that can not be done in handheld mode. Press + to bring up the menu, then scan through the action guide. It explains how to do every move in both 2 controller and single controller mode. Every single move either has a buttons-only mechanism you can use to trigger it, or it requires the exact same motion from both controllers so that you can trigger the move by just moving the entire unit.
Granted, shaking the whole thing in handheld mode is a little awkward, and the fact that there's no wrist strap option for handheld mode makes it a little more risky, but every move is possible in handheld mode.
If your website can't withstand a slight change in font rendering, how the hell do you expect your website to hold up for people who override the style sheet for accessibility? You DO know that's a thing, right? It's basically what the C in CSS is all about.
Or perhaps this should be the free square on why you read the post before replying to it. Read my post again. As I mentioned, this particular chrome change ONLY applies for event listeners that are bound to the window, document, or body. It's a pretty general rule that any type of listener should be scoped to only listen to the minimum required amount of events. When you bind to window, document, or body, you are pretty much saying GIVE ME EVERYTHING. So now you get called for every event...even those you couldn't possibly be the slightest bit interested in. Best programming practice is generally to scope your event listeners so that they only get called in cases where you might possibly be interested in handling them.
Lets look at a simple case....a webpage where the body contains 2 divs (divA and divB). In divA, you want to handle an event and perform some custom handling, possibly even cancel the the event with preventDefault. In divB, you never care about the event, so your event handler is always going to do nothing.
If you bind your event handler to divA, then whenever that event occurs in divB your event handler will never even be call. That's perfect...you aren't interested so lets not even waste time asking if you want to do anything. But if you bind your event handler to the body/document/window, your event handler is going to be needlessly called so that it can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (except waste CPU time) every time the event occurs in divB.
So that was my point...based on what I've read my gut instinct is to say that this would pretty much only affect web pages where the programmer was too sloppy/lazy to properly scope their event handler to the parts of the DOM where they're actually interested in doing something about that event.
But of course, I admit that I may certainly be overlooking cases where this isn't the case, and there's absolutely no way to implement it without throwing an event handler on the window/document/body. And that is why I humbly asked for examples where I was wrong and this is the only way to do it. I will note that you provided precisely zero example of such. Maps and reorderable lists can certainly have their event handlers properly scoped instead of just throwing them on the window/document/body
Yeah, I'm finding it a little difficult to get worked up about this. It's been this way for over half a year and I haven't noticed anything broken by it. And honestly I'm having a bit of difficulty imagining how a website could legitimately use this sort of eventListener and not be a prime example of sloppy coding. Yes it might've worked by the standard...I understand that. But really...listening for scroll events at the window, document, or body level? Can someone give me a good example of how this is used and couldn't be done better? Some of the "broken things" examples given in the linked article: Drag an drop list? Your list should be contained in some div or ul element and you should apply the listener at that wrapper level, not listen to ALL scroll events on the ENTIRE document. Sliders? Same. Maps? Same. Yes, it might have worked before by listening to all body events, but really that's just shit design.
So I feel like a better description would be more like "google broke 50% of the shitty websites, but not the well designed ones". But please, I welcome an example to show me where there are good reasons to do this.
I'd love to see what you got that couldn't be solved by you. I've personally never seen on that was not fairly easily deducible what they were asking for. I have seen one that I consider "wrong". It asked you to click on all of the apartments. Only one was obviously an apartment, but it told me I was wrong. One was a commercial building, but it appeared to be the type you'd see in some downtown area that might have an apartment located above the store (though you couldn't see the apartment itself in the picture). So I added that one too, but it still said I was wrong. There was a 3rd one that was a residential building, though clearly was not an apartment (looked to be a standalone, single family residence), but I figured they must've been classifying it as one too. Once I picked all 3, it accepted it.
It's a cat and mouse game and it will never really end.
Not sure if you intended it, but the pun there is that I'm pretty certain some forms of captchas (especial those single checkbox "I am not a bot" ones) actually examine the mouse movements and use that to help determine if you are likely a human.
Find the last real zero of this polynomial.
What.
Not "last". It was "least". "Find the least real zero of this polynomial". Then the problem was something like "(x-4)(x+2)(x-1)". This is a common algebra problem, though usually it is presented in a non-factored form of "ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d" and you have to factor into the above form. Typically you are asked to find all of the values of x which would make it equal to zero. In the above example, there are 3 possible values of x....4, -2, and 1. When x is equal to any of those 3 values, the whole thing is zero. So asking your for the least means they just want the -2.
The reason for the word "real" is because I suppose depending on the particular problem, there could be some imaginary results which would solve it, too (in case you aren't familiar, imaginary numbers are represented by "i" and are equal to the square root of -1) , and they don't want those...just the least of the real solutions.