I believe there was an experiment making weather data more accessible through the URL bar, e.g. when people start searching for weather there, which could be useful. Presumably, telemetry like this can help determine which of such features to prioritise.

I could indeed also imagine ads, but then not based on keeping a file on you with all your interests and sharing that with advertisers, but by locally choosing between a couple of categories of ads and showing the ones that are related to your current search, without anyone having to know what you’re actually searching for.

I support anonymous telemetry collected by a small non-profit that helps protect our freedom. Not big tech.

That would be a terrible AI.

It’s technically for profit, but it has a single shareholder: the Foundation. There are no greedy shareholders that can get rich off of that profit.

Of course, employees/board members can be richly compensated, but that’s independent of for-/non-profit status.

From what I read in their blog post, nobody is keeping your search history data. It only tracks how often people in general search for things in specific categories, so nobody will be able to learn anything about you specifically from that data.

llamafile also builds on that work, I believe (she’s the main contributor): https://github.com/Mozilla-Ocho/llamafile

Oh, I’m not calling for anyone to hold out (well, maybe except until this is widely supported across browsers), just encouraging folks to participate in the experimentation going on in that thread.

To make this work well with the Fediverse, you’d need to be able to specify your own server (e.g. programming.dev), which is under discussion at https://github.com/fedidcg/FedCM/issues/240.

I think the syntax explicitly won’t get standardised - but the places where syntax can be put will be (e.g. after a : following a variable, before the =). With, yes, the goal of eliminating the build step, but the type checker (which really is just a linter at this point) would still be able to define their own specific syntax. I don’t think it could work any other way either, anyway.

that will /should probably make their way into JS.

Not really, IMHO. The main advantage of TS is that it will help you catch errors without having to run a particular piece of code - i.e. you won’t have to move to the third page of some multi-page form to discover a particular bug. In other words, it helps you catch bugs before your code even reaches your browser, so it doesn’t bring you much to have them in the browser.

(There is a proposal to allow running TS in the browser, which would be nice, but you’d still run a type checker separately to actually catch the bugs.)

If TypeScript still is a fad at this point, his definition of fad is far lengthier than mine is.

I’m fairly sure TypeScript will remain in popular use longer than whatever project you’re working on 😅

TypeScript sometimes is the testing ground for the future features of ECMAScript

They have an explicit policy to only include features that are stage 3 already (i.e. that are pretty much certain to land in the language as-is). The only times they’ve diverged from this is long in the past (I think enum is the main remnant of that, for which I’d recommend using unions of literal string types instead), and experimentalDecorators under pressure from Angular - which has always been behind a flag explicitly named experimental.

So I really wouldn’t worry too much about that.

Theoretically, yet everything I make by myself turns out ugly with it. Tailwind has just enough constraints to protect me from my own dumb stylistic choices.

I’d also even argue that my source is less indecipherable - the challenge in reading CSS is not how it’s laid out, but forming a mental picture of how the rules combine to shape your layout, and meanwhile, it does remove an abstraction that I was no longer using (in certain projects - I wouldn’t use Tailwind everywhere).

I’ve seen people advocate for Tailwind because “CSS is too hard, I don’t want to think about selectors”.

Yep, those people are wrong :)

(I mean sure, you can sort-of mostly skip selectors if you use Tailwind, but selectors are about the easiest part of CSS. I’ve never heard of someone struggling specifically with those but not with e.g. layouts, stacking context, relative font sizes, etc.)

It helps me make things look presentable without making it look the same as every other website, and without constraining the things I want to do.

Absolutely, the goal of Tailwind is not to allow you to skip learning CSS, and if you don’t know CSS well, Tailwind is going to be pretty painful.

This is not a valid comparison at all.

Then why do you think most business are already writing a separate Android app rather than just optimising their mobile website?

But “make the mobile version not take up as much screen-space” is not as simple as simply zooming out and just hiding some icon labels. And just the fact that people interact by touch rather than with a mouse and keyboard is already a major adjustment.

Anyway, I’ll leave it at this, since I feel like there’s not much to gain here for me from the discussion anymore :) Cheers!

That’s theoretically true, but in practice, the desktop experience (screen size, interaction model, etc.) is sufficiently different that adapting it to mobile to get an app-like experience is not that different from building a separate app.

A big benefit is writing the app once and it working everywhere. If it only works on Android, people will just default to the tools tailored to that platform anyway.