|
I asked Copilot about the "Skip to content" feature.
My Question
Raddevus asked: Why has the accessibility feature "skip to main content" become prevalent in my browser in the recent weeks, even though I'd never seen it before in past years?
Copilot Answer
Copilot answered: The “Skip to Main Content” feature has gained prominence recently due to increased awareness and emphasis on web accessibility. When keyboard-only users interact with a webpage, they rely on the tab key to navigate links. If a page has many links at the top (such as in headers or menus), users must tab through them to reach the main content. The “Skip to Main Content” link allows users to bypass these initial sections and jump directly to the main content, enhancing accessibility12. If you encounter this feature more frequently now, it’s likely because website developers are actively implementing it to improve accessibility for all users. 😊
Ok, whatevs! I know when I'm being gas-lighted (gas-lit?)!! 
The Q-To-That-A (Question To That Answer)
Then why is no one else seeing this feature?
I must be the only one reading web sites, right?
Figured Out How To Recreate It Instantly
1) Go to github.com (or any site that uses the feature):
2) hit your tab key, one time -- you'll see it.
But why does mine recently show it if I don't tab?
Cease & Desist!
No worries, you won't hear about me talking about Skip To Main Content any more.
FYI - I posted a question to AskUbuntu[^] (Stack Exchange site).
modified yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Ok, whatevs! I know when I'm being gas-lighted (gas-lit?)!!
This is my beef with "experts"... they're not really experts. It's more ego than progress. I'm sure Copilot is just regurgitating what it read online, which ironically is just like most people. 
Given the fact that tabbing is the only place this makes sense. You'd think a smart dev would only make that appear after the first non-form tab key is pressed and the current tab index doesn't exist in the main content. That way, it won't interfere with anyone except those who would actually use it.
A little bit of knowledge is "dangerous" and this seems to be a another case of not knowing enough but still wanting to feel smart and throwing crap out there anyway.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly! Thanks for your post. I really appreciate it.
Often people just take the surface answer and run with it.
But that surface answer isn't even really right, they just get lucky.
In this case eveyrone is just saying "Oh, it's a prevalent thing now." Ok, in the last 2 weeks?
I actually searched for docs showing how to do this and they are 2-3 years old. The feature has been out there for a while.
There's a famous case of a surgeon (did a TED talk).
He had a patient and told her, "Oh, you need this surgery."
He was excited to cut into the patient and do this cool thing.
The patient paused and looked at him with big eyes, "Are you sure that is absolutely necessary?"
In that moment, for some reason, he woke up and said, "No, not really. We could just do this."
They applied the optional treatment with great success with no need to open up the patient!
Let's get to the real answer, not just the surface one.
Oh, but that does take longer than it takes to read a Meme-pic!
Oh, sorry, Modern-Social-Media-Consumer, does that require thinking on your part? 
Update: Found the link about doctor[^].
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Exactly! Thanks for your post. I really appreciate it.
Any time man.
raddevus wrote: Often people just take the surface answer and run with it.
I've learned the hard way the vast, vast majority of people can't see past the surface. Usually, their entire existence is nothing but external stimuli telling them how to think. Then there are those who think they don't do that, but still do. 
raddevus wrote: In this case eveyrone is just saying "Oh, it's a prevalent thing now." Ok, in the last 2 weeks?
Seems like a case of change for change's sake. Not out of improvement, but out of boredom. Can't get girlfriend. Won't go outside. Hmmm.... I know... let's add a friggin div MFer!
raddevus wrote: They applied the optional treatment with great success with no need to open up the patient!
Good for her. IMO that surgeon is unethical, and I doubt he's the only one like that. I bet if it was his body he'd think twice.
raddevus wrote: Oh, sorry, Modern-Social-Media-Consumer, does that require thinking on your part?
Most people never think. They're just streams of consciousness at best (being nice here). Then there are those who think they think, pretend they think, etc. Both of these crowds will violently defend not thinking. Not kidding. Only a very small percentage of people actually think.. very, very small.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delayed reply.
Windows version:
Working on updates 3%
Don't turn off your PC. This will take awhile.
Your PC may restart several times.
>64
It’s weird being the same age as old people. Live every day like it is your last; one day, it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you think?
And, even though I am an astrophysicist by profession, I am not an expert on the Solar System, so don't ask me...
However, I speculate that it actually was an alien starship. I think aliens are out there. And I think they used the Sun as a "gravity assist" vs. the center of the Galaxy, and that there were life forms on ‘Oumuamua. I agree with Harvard professor, Avi Loeb[^] when he speculated that ‘Oumuamua is, indeed, an alien starship.
I mean, what else could it be? I don't believe that it is just a rock that farted Hydrogen gas[^].
And, yes, there is some debate as to whether we should capitalize the world Hydrogen. I am of the religious persuasion that we should capitalize the names of chemical elements 
I doubt we will know the 'absolute truth' for sure. Not until we can be like in Rondezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke[^] and actually launch a spacecraft quickly (i.e., on-the-fly) from Earth and rendezvous with it.
I wonder, if there really were aliens aboard ‘Oumuamua, they were sapient, intelligent, and conscious, and if, say, we were able to quickly and on-the-fly try to rendezvous with it, would they just see our spacecraft approaching them and either (a) accelerate to warp / hyperspace to escape us, (b) let us chase them until we exhausted our fuel, (c) fire on us with their weapons, or (d) open hailing frequencies? In the case of (d), would we be able to understand each other? Or would they have to send Interlac[^] or Linguacode[^]?
I think any civilization that can construct something like ‘Oumuamua would shoot first and ask questions later if they saw a strange ship approaching. Or they would jump to warp to try and escape.
Anyone know if ‘Oumuamua has been tracked, e.g., back to where it came from, or if we can look at it with Hubble/James Web to try and catch if the aliens, say, enter hyperspace upon leaving the Sol System?
Or perhaps is it a derelict, as in, it used to be a powered starship but now it is a dead husk, tumbling through space because it is a victim of some faraway interstellar battle? Also a likely explanation, in my opinion. Pure speculation on my part, though.
I love to just sit and make up fantasies about this kind of stuff. I wish we could know for certain whether aliens are out there, and I wish we could have the technology of casual interstellar travel[^] so we could go exploring.
Regards,
Brian Hart
modified 20hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Why go to outer space for aliens?
As an Indian citizen entering the US, the immigration form at airport categorises me as an alien.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: immigration form at airport categorises me as an alien.
You should arrive without your passport. You'll then be upgraded to undocumented. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: You'll then be upgraded to undocumented.
That's only if he promises to vote a certain way. Otherwise, he'll be deported.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
My perspective was solidified when I learned about the Drake equation.
Given the sheer vastness of space, I'm inclined to believe it's inconceivable we're alone in the universe.
But at the same time, because of its vastness, I find it highly unlikely any civilization could ever construct some apparatus that could survive the harsh conditions of interstellar travel. And then could be found by intelligent life. And then have it recognized for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
We already know that none of the terms of the Drake Equation can be zero because we exist.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: none of the terms of the Drake Equation can be zero because we exist.
Right, that's why I don't need any convincing that other civilizations exist.
What I was bringing up was contact probabilities. So the Drake equation still brings value to the discussion IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
I just got done typing something very similar before reading your post. 
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
In my mind, the Drake equation is just an hypothesis. It's not meant to be a description of the way the Universe actually works.
I firmly believe in (and this is purely subjective on my part), "Where there's a will, there's a way." And in, "100 experiments can prove my theories true, but it only takes one counterexample to prove them wrong." I'm inclined to both believe it is inconceivable that we're alone in the universe and I am also inclined to take the Drake equation with a grain of salt. Just because Drake (whoever he was) wanted to be a poo-poo head and rain on everybody's parade, should not mean we should discount empirical evidence that may contradict it, when such evidence is found.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian C Hart wrote: In my mind, the Drake equation is just an hypothesis. It's not meant to be a description of the way the Universe actually works.
Sure, it's little more than a thought experiment, that lets you play around plugging in wildly varying numbers and see how they affect the outcome.
Garbage in, garbage out.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I think they used the Sun as a "gravity assist"
To travel between solar systems takes light many many years. The technology to do that for a ship, I think, would be way ahead of having to use something as archaic as Gravity Assist.
So alien life. I think that would be more of a case of wishful thinking. 
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. The use of the Sun's gravity can not only be used for speeding up / slowing down relative to the Galactic center, but also for a course-correction (i.e., to get the ship pointing in a substantially different new direction without the use of too much fuel).
|
|
|
|
|
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.
To date I have seen no convincing proof that ‘Oumuamua is anything but what it seems to be - a chunk of interstellar rock that happened to pass through our Solar System. I would be very interested in seeing incontrovertible evidence otherwise.
(And no, a Hydrogen "fart" as it left the Solar System is not incontrovertible evidence)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because we ourselves have not learned enough about the physics of how the Universe works in order to invent a means of casual interstellar travel does not mean some mind elsewhere in the Universe hasn't thought it up.
I speculate that the astrnomers who talk about Rama (oops I mean, 'Omuamua) farting Hydrogen gas stretch to find mundane explanations for actual alien starship behavior due to their refusal to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe, or that just because we haven't come up with technology to conveniently cross interstellar distances doesn't mean that some other brain out there in the universe has not discovered such a method, and we are merely ignorant of how the Universe works to a degree that we cannot conceive of anything.
There is such a thing as "falsification bias," where people who strongly disbelieve a certain preposition will work tirelessly to prove it false -- which is a GOOD thing, don't get me wrong! But sometimes I think people work too hard to so, when obvious evidence in support of a theory is staring them straight in the face.
The opposite of confirmation bias could be considered as "disconfirmation bias" or "falsification bias." This describes a tendency to seek out evidence that contradicts one's preconceived notions or beliefs, rather than selectively interpreting information that supports them. In your example, if someone harbors a strong disbelief in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and actively seeks out evidence that disproves this notion, they may be exhibiting disconfirmation bias. This bias could lead them to discount or ignore data that suggests the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life or the feasibility of interstellar travel.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian C Hart wrote: Just because we ourselves have not learned enough about the physics of how the Universe works in order to invent a means of casual interstellar travel does not mean some mind elsewhere in the Universe hasn't thought it up.
True.
Throughout history, what was considered an "acceptable hypothesis" has changed. At one time, it was acceptable to claim that one's cake didn't rise because the neighbour's wife (a witch) put the "evil eye" on the cake. Today, such a hypothesis is unacceptable. An acceptable hypothesis would be forgetting one of the ingredients, or setting the oven to the wrong temperature.
While technological civilisations almost certainly exist elsewhere in the Universe, the evidence for their existence is such that I do not believe that "it's aliens" is currently an acceptable hypothesis. Were evidence to be found of the existence of aliens (signals, a Bussard ramjet, a Dyson sphere, a Ringworld ), I would reevaluate.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take Occams Razor for 100, please. A starship is far more complex than a rock.
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and Ringworld was Larry Niven.
|
|
|
|
|
I got the two mixed up
My OP was fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
