-
Posts
1,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Everything posted by PianoPlayer88Key
-
So I was thinking of a couple things (that I think are better for a status update, even though I wouldn't mind hearing other people's thoughts on these)....
About the trend of tech devices getting thinner (like smartphones, tablets) ...
I personally don't mind somewhat thicker devices, to get more battery, better components / cooling, better build quality (for example, being able to run over a phone with a car, or dropping it off the roof, etc).
In the "race"(?) to make devices thinner, I don't want things to go *TOO* far.
For example, have a tablet that's SO thin, that ...
Well, you have a flock of geese flying by.
You take your super thin tablet, and (vertically) frisbee it at the flying geese.
The flying tablet cuts right through them, decapitating (or doing whatever, depending on where it impacts) several geese CLEANLY (no bone splinters, no blood spurting, the force of the impact sealing off what otherwise might flow)
(I'm thinking, for example, the imaginary-for-now-but-could-it-be-possible-later super thin tablet is thinner than the space between the individual cells in the birds' bodies.)
If it would ever be possible to use a thin tech device like a tablet, phone, laptop, etc in that manner, then I would think it could be very dangerous to humans as well.
Also another thing.
Many of us who remember, back in the day, started off having a FD.
At some point most of us probably upgraded to a HD.
(Some of us may have had a LD before the upgrade too, but not everyone was cursed with one.)
However....
What happens if we keep the HD for longer than 4 hours?
Does it become a SSD?
Or does it just turn into a CD (even if we'd had a LD previously)?-
6 hours ago, Caroline said:
Is this a philosophical question?
why would a hard drive transform into something else after four hours?
It's a play on words / acronyms. (just change the "s" to a "c", or pretend your "s" key doens't work) I might not be talking about Hard Disks. (That's a lot closer to the word on my mind than "Drive".)
Spoiler(Okay so at least one of the terms doesn't quite match but still same abbreviation)
FD = FloppyDiskDick
HD = HardDiskDick
LD =Laser DiscLong Dick
SSD = Solid StateDiskDick (basically permanently "frozen" into hard mode, but unusable)
CD= CompactDiscDick (always small, unable to become bigger)
I forgot one more ... Does it end up being an AD?
AD =Active Directory/DomainAmputated Dick
I couldn't think of one for DVD and don't remember what other common acronyms end in D (especially for Disc/Disk)
-
Okay listen up, browsers, websites, etc, whichever is responsible.
When I'm on a site, and I hit the back button to go to where I was, that means GO BACK TO WHERE I CLICKED/TAPPED FROM!
It does NOT mean go to some intermediate page, like "more stories to read before you go" or "Keep reading on our site please"!
And, if I clicked to open in a new tab, and had subsequently closed the originating tab, then it should either close my tab (on mobile) or do nothing (on desktop, based on current behavior / observation) or blank out the tab / go to the default home page / new tab page in that tab.
Also, when I'm reading a text article, do not autoplay a £µ¢κing video - in fact, do not even LOAD the resources! The content I came to see should take like 99.99999999% or so of the total resources for the page, or, the background stuff / ads / scripts / etc should be at least several SI prefixes less than the actual content. (by SI prefix, I mean peta, tera, giga, mega, kilo, (base), milli, micro, nano, pico, etc.)
Capisci?
-
1 hour ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:
When I'm on a site, and I hit the back button to go to where I was, that means GO BACK TO WHERE I CLICKED/TAPPED FROM!
Definitely is irritating, but I right click on the back button, and then choose where I was, if the page decides to do shit like this and redirect many times so clicking back would still keep you on their page.
-
9 hours ago, RockSolid1106 said:
Definitely is irritating, but I right click on the back button, and then choose where I was, if the page decides to do shit like this and redirect many times so clicking back would still keep you on their page.
Maybe so, but often I don't even know that the page / site is doing Scheiße like that, until it's already happened. Also it's a bit harder to do on mobile.
"redirect many times" - reminds me... Sometimes when I see websites abusing browser / coding functions - if I knew coding (beyond print hello world and the few things I knew ~30 years ago and forgot) and was involved in relevant things including administratively (for lack of a better way to say it), I would completely remove the base function that allows the abuse.
For example, I remember some years ago, sometimes when I'd be on a site, when I closed a page, other ads would spawn in new windows. For that, I would have done something like completely remove JavaScript's "onWindowClose" function, or something like that.
Another thing I wish I could set up is, whenever I search for something, don't allow results that have any kind of paywall.
That would apply regardless of the browser, OS, device, platform, architecture, internet connection, etc I'm using, whether I'm logged in or not, or where I am.
It would also apply to "soft" paywalls - those that let you read a few articles a month then require payment, as well as sign-in walls which, while still free, require an account.
The filter should be able to be circumvented by the end user (me that is, NOT the site or content provider) if either A - I have an account / subscription, or B - what I'm seeking is ONLY available through a paid site, and I would be warned accordingly.
-
-
Okay, one thing I absolutely hate with a fiery passion, are the frequent times I'll be reading a text article, when a fucking VIDEO starts automatically playing!
Another thing I hate is when sites have a ton of resources loading in the background that seem to have very little if anything at all to do with the content I'm looking at.
I think, that the content I'm looking at should take the vast majority of the total resources used. For example, if I'm reading text, the total bytes used should only be a couple KB for a typical short article. Of course if I'm looking at photos or videos that I choose to see, or listening to audio that I choose to hear, those will take more resources.
But, the background things really need to be tamed IMO. I've seen sites taking up several hundred MB to a few GB memory in task manager, that based on the content should have, I think, only taken maybe a few dozen KB to several MB or so.