I spent waaay too long trying to figure out why my CSS rule didn't work. It doesn't accept me to overwrite an already existing one. The rules did not specify this at all.
It is not clear that the game wants me to find another rule that fixes the problem instead of adding a single perfectly valid line of CSS that does it. There is a huge difference between those two. CSS being cascading meaning that any CSS property coming after an initial rule will overwrite the previous one (in part or fully).
It would be really nice if the game would tell me if the rule I added wasn't allowed instead of just silently failing to do anything with no feedback.
I thought the site was broken for the exact same reason. Instead of being a troubleshooting / practice type test it's more of a puzzle that I do not care to solve.
You can still play that way if you want. Just open your browser's dev tools and edit the CSS rules inside the dev tools. Once you have them overlapping, you just need to do something to trigger the victory check which can be accomplished by doing basically anything (resize the window, click on a circle, type something, I haven't found any action that doesn't trigger the victory check yet).
Exactly what I did to the first one. `left: 12xxpx` did it.
Then I got back here to check if I am only one dumb enough to not understand why it does not work.
Same, because of the lack of feedback I genuinely thought it didn't work. Especially considering the fact many editing things don't work (double click doesn't select, cmd+(shift+)arrows doesn't work, etc.)
It's a perfect representation of CSS: it looks and feels like it should do what you need, but it doesn't _technically_ do what it's supposed to do, so you spend a few hours _trying_ to make sense of it, falling back to just random fuzzing and trial and error, before concluding it's all broken and finally accepting it in its current wonky form, trusting that in some browser, somewhere, it works.
I'm pretty good at handling the cascade and knowing how things work, so this experience you are describing is not mine where CSS is concerned, I doubt I've had to do several hours of trying to make sense of any CSS for probably 5-6 years.
As such that the game does not actually allow you to use the cascade as it should be used is a downside.
"I understand cascading and so I know it isn't what should be done with Cascading StyleSheets. It is right this tool to simulate CSS doesn't support CSS' nominative feature "
I'm glad we agree CSS is unintuitive on many unique and creative fronts.
It must be maddening working as a browser dev knowing that the very first thing most devs worth their corn do is immediately go to abstracts so they are able ignore your work as much as they can.
How would you deal with this common issue in many multiplayer shooters?:
- I see someone sniping
- I go behind a wall to safety
- I still die
From the enemy snipers perspective I was still in view when he shot.
From my perspective I was not.
Many game servers only roll back time to validate from the shooter's perspective.
In this case you'd want some logic to perhaps negotiate a compromise - like only dealing half damage.
Why not just store each "frame" of spectral image as it's own HEVC compressed video clip?
Each image frame in the video corresponds to a slice of the light spectrum. The longer the video, the more precision you pack into the frame. With that you have variable precision per frame as you see fit.
It being a video you exploit the obvious video compression advancements that has been achieved over the years without having to reinvent the wheel.
> It being a video you exploit the obvious video compression advancements that has been achieved over the years without having to reinvent the wheel.
If you pull away enough layers in any modern video codec, you will find that the intraframe compression case looks very similar to how JPEG operates. You have a block/partitioning scheme, a transform (DCT/DST), quantization, and then some sort of entropy coding.
I feel like this could be a nice high school physics test question. Realistically, I don't think HV lines have much energy loss, owing to the use of high voltage in the first place as a means of minimizing loss. Then there are considerations for air resistance in the tubes, an almost 100% effective insulator, and all those real world issues of gnarly general maintenance.
Almost all electricity run through computers are basically resistance losses at the end of the day, so data centers and crypto miners on the other hand...
Could not find the answer, kept getting general pages about how much current a wire can pass (without the result even containing the keyword I looked for, like temperature or heat or warm). To still have some indication of whether this is an interesting thing to keep looking into, ChatGPT says:
> Typically, high-voltage transmission lines are designed to operate at temperatures of around 75 to 100°C (167 to 212°F). However, under heavy loads, they can sometimes reach up to 150°C (302°F), but this is usually the upper limit for safe operation.
If that's a core temperature then the insulation might not make it significant, but if the outside leaks this much... I might not mind paying myself for a plastic tube and a fan to use around the line if I lived near one. Okay okay, it'll be more complicated than that, but still: free energy? And you're doing the power company a favor by decreasing the resistance in the case of most metals (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/resistivity-conductivity-...) including copper which https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_cable says they're made of
It's entirely possible the wires would get hot enough to get useful heat, but I think the much more practical challenge is moving the air and insulating it from the outside.
Beyond that, you're likely also decreasing the maximal electrical current the wires can carry, as they won't be able to dissipate the heat as effectively with the additionally insulation.
The linked article explains it further down. In common cases it boils down to "if you're rich don't bother with insurance, if you're poor you should pay it".
> In a concrete example, let’s say that our household wealth is $25,000, and we’ve just gotten a motorcycle with some miles on it already.
> Assuming no deductible, would this be worth it? Yes!
> If our wealth had been $32,000 instead, the insurance would no longer have been worth it
>In common cases it boils down to "if you're rich don't bother with insurance, if you're poor you should pay it".
This is way too simple. If you're rich then you stand to lose more in many situations, and may be deemed a lower risk so insurance is cheaper. If you're in reasonably good health and on the verge of being evicted if you miss a paycheck, paying hundreds per month for health insurance to head off unlikely risks is a bad idea. Probability is supposed to account for this but you might know that you're not getting pregnant or having expensive surgery, for example. An insurance company cannot assume such a thing. So they are obligated to charge you way more than you can ever get back. It is also relevant that if you miss insurance payments, you will lose coverage.
Another wrench in this methodology is that some costs are not purely financial. What price do you put on the risk of dying from a lack of treatment? Is that risk higher than the risk of ending up destitute and uninsured anyway?
The title made me believe it was just another AI assistant (thinking Janet from "The Good Place" - but for us non-dead people instead. Was pleasantly surprised to see it is a programming language and that the title was just a clever joke on that:
The Janet language is named after an immortal being in The Good Place who helps mortals navigate the afterlife, hence the title.
It kinda surprised me that they ship the language with a PEG (parsing expression grammer) instead of a basic Regex engine.
This has been my wish for any programming language that ships a Regex library by default to also include a capable PEG.
Janet's 'spork' module is kinda like their libc, and has a regex submodule; it's very likely to be installed.
Janet is my first exposure to PEGs, so nothing to compare against but I love how powerful and easy they are. I have a better grasp of them in only a few months than dabbling over 20yrs with regex.
Also there is quite a bit of The Good Place callbacks within the Janet community; numerous 3rd party modules are named after characters, for example.
I took it one step further even earlier using a Flash file as a backdrop which was able to achieve the glass effect while still being in a dynamic moveable frame. Can't recall if it used iframes, would need to dig up the code but considering the era it probably did.
The floating window doesn't update for me past the initial position. Windows 10 19045.5131. Chrome is up to date Version 131.0.6778.86 (Official Build) (64-bit)
That is quite strange Chrome behavior. Seems to only update it's background position when the window size changes. Looks like a Chrome bug to me! Probably some optimization effort that went wrong. I'm quite sure that it worked back in the days in Chrome.
Or analogous of how you convert audio waveform data into frequencies with the fast-fourier transform, modify it in the frequency spectrum and convert it back into waveform again.
Their examples does however only look a bit like distorted pixel data. The hands of the children seem to warp with the cloth, something they could have easily prevented.
The cloth also looks very static despite it being animated, mainly because the shading of it never changes.
If they had more information about the scene from multiple cameras (or perhaps inferred from the color data), the Gaussian splat would be more accurate and could even incorporate the altered angle/surface-normal after modification to cleverly simulate the changed specular highlights as it animates.
Aside from tonnes of possible security vulnerabilities, I do see some upsides:
The interconnceted-ness could make perfect sense when it comes to collision prevention. If there is a collision up further ahead, this information can be quickly propagated between nearby cars to warn and/or automatically slow down.
I do not know if this is already in use or if it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G. Would also make sense if ambulances could make their presence known to drivers much earlier so they can get out of the way.
This sounds like more of a use case for short range communications, not so much internet connectivity. Tying this tech to the internet makes it less effective as it stops working when you go out of range. And a car's stopping distance is far outranged by what short range comms is capable of.
reply