Accessibility is for all user experiences, not just websites. WCAG is still a good resource for native apps even where some specifics do not 100% apply.
If Qwasm is referring to Quake, it absolutely should have, for example, legible color contrast and be usable if you are colorblind.
It's good to know that "Linux is only free if your time is worthless" still holds true after all these years. From the way many talk, I honestly thought it might have changed.
Not really, last year I was foolish enough to have bought a NUC without properly checking its Linux support, because I assumed usually the problems nowadays would only be laptop related, on desktop like systems we're pretty safe.
Never managed to find a distribution that supported the UEFI bios, booting from an internal SSD, only from external storage via SSD, after so many attempts across a few months, I also managed to burn something on the motherboard.
Conclusion, 300 euros thrown into the local recycling center.
I know Linux systems since 1995's Summer, do regularly manage Linux servers at work, and still this thing failed on me, now imagine regular people.
The things you mentioned work fine in Linux. There’s one exception, in that brand new intel/amd hardware typically takes three to six months to get decent support. During that time one should use bleeding-edge Fedora which should get better every week.
Article points are mostly all valid, don't give your loyalty in return for abuse, etc. etc.
But I've been at my employer 11 years now and I have greatly prospered. They took care of me in many ways that aren't required by law, and gave great benefits. They didn't abuse me or take undue time from my family. They constantly invest in my career -- for their ultimate benefit, yes, but I benefit too. If and when I get transactioned out, I'll have no regrets.
It's ok to reward an employer with some loyalty for treating you well.
But also, this quote needs to be here :)
Would I ever leave this company? Look, I’m all about loyalty, In fact, I feel like part of what I’m being paid for here is my loyalty, But if there were somewhere else that valued loyalty more highly… I’m going wherever they value loyalty the most. — Dwight Schrute
Exactly the right attitude. If you're dealing with an employer that thinks everything should be transactional and that it's no issue if they nickle and dime you on small things, it gets tiring (ask me how I know). When your employer acts in ways that value their employees, it's ok to put a value on that, even if you recognize they're not your spouse and they may lay you off or act in other un-loyal ways in the future.
A common mistake in accessibility is to assume accessibility is mostly for users who are blind. I've rarely seen the opposite approach, calling something accessible that is very much not accessible to a person who is blind. A url is much more accessible for many people with disabilities than the postal mail.
Even if you mean access instead of accessibility, presumably a person who can find a way to acquire stamps can just as easily make it to a library with public computers.
Copyright, and patents, are not based on moral principles. It's a temporary government license meant to encourage innovation and hustle. Whether it works or not, I don't know. But the only question of morality is if it's immoral to break an arbitrary law, or not.
Copyright has always been based on moral principles. 'Moral rights' have been part of copyright longer than "encourage innovation and hustle" has been something the government has considered worth promoting. The original copyright laws were about controlling who could print the bible, and the statute of anne was about encouraging learning while controlling what booksellers could and couldn't do. Copyright if anything was about preventing innovation from the very beginning, and slowing the hustle of culture down so that incumbents could edge out newcomers - a drama that has played out generation after generation
The point I was addressing was whether or not copyright is grounded in moral rights, and as my earlier response notes, it depends on jurisdiction and foundations.
That said, I've come to a general view that moralising of pathologies or other behaviours is often highly counterproductive. Medicine progressed little when illness, disease, or dysfunction were rationalised as will of gods or divine retribution. Germ theory and other causal etiologies broke that dam. Left-handedness was widely viewed as literally malevolent, a sign of the devil. Which did little to prevent the condition, and greatly hampered opportunities and life-paths of the roughly 10% of the population which is left handed. Oppression of LGBTQIX+ individuals is often presented as a similar situation. Mental health and illness still carry strong moralising-of-pathology overtones, though the situation's improving. Justice and penal systems are presented by some as another such case (see in particular Robert Sapolsky).
Back to copyright and patent: both foundations, authorial/inventor support and moral rights strike me as grossly flawed in both grounding and consequence.
When you achieve expertise you know when to break the rules. Until then it is wise to avoid premature optimization. In many cases understandable code is far more important.
I was working with a peer on a click handler for a web button. The code ran in 5-10ms. You have nearly 200ms budget before a user notices sluggishness. My peer "optimized" the 10ms click handler to the point of absolute illegibility. It was doubtful the new implementation was faster.
Depending on your spend on infrastructure and the business revenue, if the problem is not causing the business to increase spending on infrastructure each month or if there’s little to no rise in user complaints over slow downs, then the “optimization” isn’t worth it and is then premature.
Most commonly, If the costs increase as the users increase it then becomes an issue with efficiency and the scaling is not good nor sustainable which can easily destroy a startup.
In this case, the Linux kernel is directly critical for applications in AI, real time systems, networking, databases, etc and performance optimizations and makes a massive difference.
This article is a great example of properly using compiler optimizations to significantly improve performance of the service. [0]
My wife uses this solution. When I am at work and someone wants to know if I can do a team dinner, I have to call her if she's at home, or tell them I'll get back to them. I never know if I'm free and finding out is inefficient at best.
Nearly the same thing here. We're scheduling for our daughter who, as she's getting older, has increasingly more scheduled events, too. If we're out of the house and my wife hasn't brought the paper calendar with her we simply can't commit to any plans. It's excruciating.
The cobbler's children go barefoot, so I haven't come up with a good solution for us... >sigh< It almost makes me want to hitch my wagon to a hosted product/service. Almost.
I used to do this with my wife, and it drove me crazy. Now we use a shared Google calendar, which works way better than prior solutions. Our unspoken rule: if there is an open time slot available, the first to enter it in the shared calendar wins. We're both responsible for entering all family-related appointments in the calendar as soon as they come up. There have been conflicts when either of us forgets to enter something into the calendar, but we just resolve the conflicts as usual. This was a game-changer from my point of view.
Great comment, and I love the thought process. My answer to the question: What is the difference? Humans and corporations are exceedingly predictable. We know what they both want, generally. We also rely on human issues as a limiting factor.
For an AI controlled corporation, I don't know what it wants or what to expect. And if decision making happens at the speed of light, by the time we have any warning it may be too late to react. Usually with human concerns, we get lots of warnings but wait longer than we should to respond.
A lot of niche things I want cease to exist in this advertising-free world. If the interest isn't mainstream enough to get a word-of-mouth recommendation then it can't survive. The services we use to find these things, Google, Etsy, Fan sites, none of them exist without advertising. I'm sure you can think of something that was never explicitly advertised to you, that you wanted, that you wouldn't be able to find anymore if this came to pass.
If Qwasm is referring to Quake, it absolutely should have, for example, legible color contrast and be usable if you are colorblind.
reply