I see comments like this a lot actually and I'm curious, if the client is manipulating the intended style and layout of the site, do you really think it's the responsibility of the website owner ?
This isn't the case of a browser plugin modifying the styles. The blog framework or whatever detects what your browser/system preference is and respects it. So if you've got your browser/os set to "dark mode" the page renders in "dark mode". Except the author used transparent images with dark lines, so they are invisible.
The site automatically displays in dark mode if the browser says it’s using dark mode.
So this isn’t something the user is doing to manipulate the style and layout: their browser is saying “hey, fyi, this user’s local system biases to dark mode” and the site is choosing to respond by styling in a way that breaks diagram visibility.
The blog has a toggle for darkmode and some of their images are black text with a transparent background. When darkmode is toggled, the text is effectively invisible, so in this case it seems to be an oversight of the blog.
The UX of Jetbrains IDE is objectively worse, I will take Rider as example (since I use it everyday).
We can start with basic things: the contrast, in default settings in dark mode for both. In theses conditions, Rider contrast is too low for a screen you have to stare all the day, compared to VS Code.
Commonly used item are in sub menus (in vscode they are sorted by most commonly items on top), common shortcuts requires finger gymnastics.
Unless you have more these feel not only extremely weak but extremely subjective. Please avoid trying to phrase your opinions as some fact it’s a tiring trope these days.
The fact that's the contrast is bad isn't something subjective, the font rendering is also shit and reduce the contrast further.
This is an accessibility issue, not some subjective problem.
- “default theme sucks and is bad accessibility”. On its own this is objectively provable of course except when you’re talking about probably the single most commonly changed setting in a coders primary IDE other than maybe font. Calling the app objectively bad because it chose a bad default theme that gets immediately changed is a weak take
- “hidden menu options” this is the subjective one as I called out unless you can provide examples that are universal.
- “bad keyboard shortcuts” is subjective for the most part but even still is a widely changed option and very easy to fix. So calling the app objectively bad for this is also a weak take.
You can select a simple metric, practicality, that will be objective.
The items in VS Code are sorted the chance you have to use it depending of the context. In rider, commonly used items are in submenu (rename hiding in refactoring), less commonly used items are not in the submenus.
For the keyboard shorcuts, again you can argue practicality as an objective metric. The number of keys for a combo and distance between the keys have a big practicality factor, and Jetbrains IDEs loves F-keys (that you can't reach if you hold a keyboard like ergonomists recommends)
Due to the poor font rendering and colors picked in Rider, by default there is a contrast of 4.77 which is just meet the minimum ratio, and for an app you stare all the day at, it's not enough.
From the firefox docs:
> Having good color contrast on your site benefits all your users
I suggest you to read some research on UX so you can understand that a big part of UX is in fact, not subjective.
Like poor contrast cause reading fatigue on all humans, but at varying level.
And that researchers determined a contrast ratio at which a certain percentage of the population can read without problems.
And yes that's a recommendation because they can't force you to do it, so they recommand you to do it.
That's not the question. The question was "you can change the toolbars and shortcuts in JetBrains Rider, no?"
I presume the answer is yes, from what you said. Then it becomes less of an issue, if not an non-issue.
IDEs and code editors are tools which we live with for a long time. Nobody expects their defaults to be unchanged. Otherwise we'd be all using notepad.exe for coding.
Not having the defaults organized by your tastes is not a valid reason for disqualifying a tool out of the gate.
As a counter example, Electron's font rendering is nothing to drool over, from my perspective, and doesn't give an extra point for using it in my case.
An IDE's literal whole selling point is supposedly being a packaged product that you can just pick up and run with, at the price of not being particularly good at any of the things it does (and usually being pretty expensive).
If you still need to customize everything then, well, what did you actually gain over assembling your environment by yourself from actually competent pieces?
I don’t think so, because the IDE doesn’t carry the language tooling with it, but interfaces with the tooling you already have in place.
That said, every IDE is opinionated about workflows, and if you’re open to adapt to that, the defaults makes sense. Otherwise you slowly hammer it to the shape you want.
For me an IDEs greatest selling point or the infinite flexibility it provides.
The OC point was that VS Code UX "is a mess by comparison", and VS Code UX is fully configurable, therefor if you have a problem with VS Code UX, you are complaining about it's defaults settings.
Also Jetbrains IDEs font rendering is simply awful, it doesn't hold the comparison to electron: https://i.imgur.com/u4ZV2Kd.png
I sent the plot to ChatGPT 4o. Here is the conversation:
what do you see
ChatGPT said:
This is a scatter plot with the variables "steps" on the x-axis and "bmi" on the y-axis. The data points are colored by "gender" (red for female and blue for male). Interestingly, the arrangement of the points appears to form a drawing resembling a cartoonish figure or character, likely added for artistic or humorous effect.
If you'd like, I can help analyze or discuss the data further!
You said:
Wha the cartoonish figure looks like ?
ChatGPT said:
The cartoonish figure in the plot resembles a stylized gorilla or monkey-like character. It appears to be waving with one hand raised, while the other arm is resting downward. The face is expressive, with distinct eyes, a nose, and a slightly frowning mouth. The overall pose gives it a somewhat playful or cheeky vibe.
If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really.
The EU had committed to a number of deep space and scientific instrument programmes spanning decades and seen them through to success. It operates its own GNSS constellation. It is second only to NASA. Calling it a failure is ridiculous.
I suspect the previous poster's metric of innovation was more along the lines of:
* developing the first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket, and continuing to develop it to the extent that no other launch systems are even in the same ballpark as regards cost, cadence, or mass to orbit
* developing, and continuing to develop, the only full-flow staged combustion rocket engine
* developing, and continuing to develop, a novel, completely-reusable, next-generation very-heavy-lift platform, before any of the competition have even caught with their previous generation
* (to your snarky point about explosions) demonstrating that moving fast, evolving designs quickly, and not being afraid to (be seen to) fail (in the short term, in the court of public opinion, etc.) in the pursuit of success is much better than the traditional conservative approach (e.g. NASA, Blue Origin, etc.)
I'm well aware that giving credit to anything related to Musk is increasingly difficult for some people at the moment, but let's give credit where it's due to SpaceX and its engineers.
The snarky point of explosions wasn't mine, the poster I replied to brought it up.
The rest of your points is really one item, launch vehicles. It's where the USA clearly has the lead (above everyone else, not just ESA in particular). The question was whether the EU can successfully manage complex projects and it clearly can, suggesting otherwise is delirious.
The previous poster was basically supportive of SpaceX, talked about innovation, and didn't mention explosions at all. You wrote "If your metric of innovation is the amount of rockets exploded at debuts you shouldn't bring up SpaceX really." I interpreted this as a snarky reference to the fact the lots of SpaceX rockets have blown up - mostly due to their different approach to development.
The comment implying that SpaceX isn't innovative is what I was replying to - that looking at the work that SpaceX does (and not the whole pantheon of other space-related work it's not involved in) it's demonstrably innovative in a way that ESA just isn't (e.g. with Ariane).
The poster I replied to brought up Ariane 5 crash as the example of ESA dysfunction while being very positive about SpaceX. SpaceX had lost plenty launch vehicles both in testing and with live payloads, just ask Zuckerberg. I pointed out the contradiction there.
> developing the first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket, and continuing to develop it to the extent that no other launch systems are even in the same ballpark as regards cost, cadence, or mass to orbit.
The space shuttle solid boosters were reusable, the only part of the space shuttle program that wasn't, was the big orange tank.
Eh, I knew someone was going to nit-pick this point, which was why I wrote "first meaningful fully-reusable first stage rocket" but obviously this wasn't enough. :)
It's the most expensive bug in history.
On the other hand, you are bringing up explosions of empty rockets that are launched as test, that's bad faith.
Look at the launch history and the Falcon 9 is simply more reliable than the Ariane 5:
I did not said it was a failure, I said, they do not have a "pretty good track record". ESA burn through EU money, and wont care to innovate as long as EU provide them unlimited money and dont pressure them. It's an ivory tower.
> The question was if the EU method of doing project works and it does in very unambiguous manner.
As the EU falls economically and scientifically behinds what used to be our peers, it's obvious that it _doesn't_ work. Refusing to recognise that reality is a spectacular example of the Ostrich effect,
Are you talking about Huygens? That was launched on a Titan IV in 1997(!) and landed in 2005!
In 1997, the EU was a global economic and scientific powerhouse. We're talking about the ossification in the last 15-20 years that has not only allowed the US to leapfrog Europe as the largest economy, but China too.
You are bordering on delusional with these comments.
>The US constellation isn’t as accurate as the newer networks, said Roberts, the Sydney-based professor. “It used to be GPS was out in front,” he said. Now, though, the EU’s Galileo is in the lead, with China’s BeiDou close behind, he said.
That would be expected for a system launched 33 years later, but in Galileo and GPS are identical for civilian use (and obviously no-one knows the military capabilities of Block III satellites as that's undisclosed).
GPS+Gailleo is the current SOTA, but it's nonsense to say Galileo is "best".
Galileo has signal authentication, GPS doesn't. In a world where GNSS spoofing is increasingly becoming a hazard to aviation and other applications, that's arguably critical.
for navigation using Code method GPS-tier is basically good enough.
for precise measurement you use phase measurement of the signal, and what you care about is good(low) DoP of constellation and amount of satellites within sight-line - not from which system they come(to oversimplfy it a bit)
Galileo did not start as an EU programme. China used to be member!
What other EU programmes did you have in mind? The EU's efforts not even seem comparable to the European Space Agency (which is not part of the EU) let alone NASA.
I asked it to go on seloger.com, to find "some flats on paris below 400k".
It went on some specific district of Paris, and didn't put a price citeria then responded how I could do it myself.
I then asked to create a CSV of the first 100 flats corresponding to my criteria, it created only 3 entries, purely hallucinated.
reply