And for us power-users, please implement the hiding of all the bars (tab bar, location bar etc), so we can save some screen real estate on our tiny laptop screens, when using the browser with other windows side-by-side.
Off-topic but very important:
The widespread misuse of the word 'dependency' is very very icky, linguistically speaking. This word originally meant: 'in a state of being dependent'. Usage: "Ronny hated his dependency on the kindness of strangers.". But it's being used to refer to the 'dependent', as well as the 'dependee', which is very poor form:
The original meaning still works. In the software world, where abstractions abound, each dependee of yours can be said to add one 'state of being dependent' to your set of requirements. That's what it meant originally in this young field; when an author chooses to use a library instead of writing their own code, they're adding a requirement for the user ("Hey, you gotta have this thing already installed"). The software is in a state of being dependent on each of its dependees, individually. Each such state could be removed by replacing the library, and thus there'd exist one less 'dependency'.
----
Yes, this is mental gymnastics, another fine staple of this glorious field.
I don't think that is any issue whatsoever, the software engineering world has largely agreed on the usage of the word dependency, doesn't really matter what linguists think. Language is consensus, not thesis papers.
Apart from the humanitarian catastrophe, does anyone else feel vexed, at the enormous resources and man-hours lost because of the bombing campaigns in conflicts? One could argue, that efforts towards achieving inter-national harmony is also vital in reducing humanity's carbon footprint.
As a person with one name and a programming background, I've always put my actual name in the last name field, assuming that that would usually be the most significant sorting field.
> Let us think of x as a quantity that can grow by a small amount so as to become x+dx, where dx is the small increment added by growth. The square of this is x2+2x⋅dx+(dx)^2. The second term is not negligible because it is a first-order quantity; while the third term is of the second order of smallness, being a bit of, a bit of x^2.
It seems to me that the third term is actually a bit of a bit of x, rather than of x^2.
>Now if, for such a purpose, we regard 1/1,000,000 (or one millionth) as a small quantity, then 1/1,000,000 of 1/1,000,000, that is 1/1,000,000,000,000 (or one billionth) ..
From wikipedia[0]:
A billion is a number with two distinct definitions:
1,000,000,000, i.e. one thousand million, or 109 (ten to the ninth power), as defined on the short scale. This is now the meaning in both British and American English.
Historically, in British English, 1,000,000,000,000, i.e. one million million, or 1012 (ten to the twelfth power), as defined on the long scale. This is one thousand times larger than the short scale billion, and equivalent to the short scale trillion.
Historically, in British English, 1,000,000,000,000, i.e. one million million, or 1012 (ten to the twelfth power), as defined on the long scale. This is one thousand times larger than the short scale billion, and equivalent to the short scale trillion.
It will put strong pressure to align the law with implementation. If the implementation treads into injustice, it (the law) is explicitly designed to be against those who can shrug it off, rather than drown.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35704698