Try to save a webm if it serves you an mp4, though. Maybe they changed it lately, but I just could not figure it out - .webm and .mp4 both just silently redirected to .gifv last I tried.
Saving a video off imgur works about half the time in firefox, based on ???. There's a bug for it but it hasn't gotten much attention. It's a problem of imgur playing games with headers, embedding a video inside a web page and using the exact same URL for each. I haven't had any issues in chrome.
Twitter's just putting dumb empty divs over the content. And they make it impossible to get the source gif even in cases where the video version is larger and lower quality. Thanks twitter.
Why do they do that kind of thing? If anything, you might expect them to include less RAM & storage so that you're forced to work under tighter limitations.
It's so you can leave debug symbols in your executable: for a release you'll strip your binaries and pack them quite tight. For developing you'd like to have more uncompressed data in ram, and you want full debug symbols and debug info on the stack. Not to mention that debuggers themselves take a non-zero amount of ram.
There is no reason to work under tighter constraints. You want developers to be able to push the retail version of the hardware to the limits. In order to do that and still be able to run debug builds you need the dev kit to be more powerful than the retail version.
I'm probably getting this wrong since I haven't looked into it, but I think they're talking about the idea of an infinite number of universes that contain the totality of all that is possible. When one dies, they only cease to exist in that universe, but continue to exist in others.
Improvement: If I navigate to https://botlist.co/bots/filter?platform=5, then I should be able to see what each bot claims to do, without needing to click in to the #show page
I posted one of your share links into our Slack, and was really impressed with the image it found (your `meta property="og:image"`) & attached in the rich snippet! Nice work!
Why not a <div> with a border-radius & background color? Seems you could achieve the same thing without another HTTP request (1 for each unique avatar), no need to zopfli 45,000 unique files.
That's what I was thinking too, but they really want it to be pixel perfect in every browser, email, etc. They have a good in-depth discussion about all the options and pros/cons of each approach here:
These are default (placeholder) avatars. Users can upload their own avatar image as well. They're serving PNGs so they don't have to deal with the case where users using default avatars get HTML output whereas users who have uploaded an avatar get an image inserted.
That wont work in email... I'm generating a usage graph (svg) that is emailed and the graph will not display in the client.. Must be opened in a browser
I was confused by this as well, you could also support more colors this way. Since it's just a circle with a letter, I don't think there would be concerns with crispness of the icon.
I feel it's getting worse. A large % of the links (mostly start-ups landing pages, not articles) I click on HN just present me with a completely blank white page. No <noscript>, nothing! If you're lucky, you see enough to realize that it's probably just a page that relies on JS. It's never a good first impression.
It's getting progressively more annoying to whitelist the TLD as well as the myriads of CDNs that sites are using. Often it's a click gamble: a "Temporarily allow sketchy.domain.com", throwing in the towel and saying "Temporarily allow all this site".
Site embeds a video? Good luck picking which domain to whitelist out of a list of 35 different domains ;) Temporarily allow one, reload, repeat a few times, close tab in anger and disappointment.
Twitter though, doesn't seem possible