|
Wordle 769 3/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟨
🟨⬛🟨⬛🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Was not possible if I didn't had 4 letters... not a common word for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 769 2/6*
🟨🟩🟨⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 769 4/6
⬛⬛🟨⬛🟨
⬛🟨🟨⬛🟨
⬛🟨⬛🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 769 4/6
🟨🟨⬛⬛🟨
🟨🟨⬛🟨⬛
⬛🟩🟨⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Funny enough, it's actually a word I use all the time when I want to sound fancy.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 769 4/6
⬛🟩🟨⬛🟨
🟨🟩🟨⬛🟨
🟨🟩🟩🟨⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 769 3/6
🟨🟨⬜🟨🟨
⬜🟨🟨🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I will die on this hill.
Smooth text to speech backed by a ChatGPT style engine grown and restricted to the video game universe for NPCs in game.
Using something like this as the front end:
FakeYou. Deep Fake Text to Speech.[^]
It's gonna happen, and I'm not a game developer. I just have ideas over here.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
|
|
|
|
|
I see a new advertisement here on this site from a company named Auth0.
I don't think that they're tag line actually gets across what they mean. OTOH, I think it sends exactly the wrong message.
The tag line is "What would you do with 33% less development time?"
To me, that means I'd be 33% less productive if I'm missing all that time to do my work.
Does it strike anyone else the same way?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: What would you do with 33% less development time?
I guess I would "Start Building", at least that is what the click bait button says to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Noooo...
I don't want to miss Compiling[^]
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Compiling[^]
I knew that was coming  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
It was a must... I had to... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That is ambiguous wording. Does it mean you have 20 hours instead of 30 hours or does it mean you get everything done in 33% less time? The latter would be a good thing. The former - not so much.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
"You understand what I mean! Don't be a silly fool!"
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: "What would you do with 33% less development time?"
I don't see any other way or reading it.
"You'll spent a third of your time just figuring out our library".
|
|
|
|
|
It depends WHO you are, I think. If you're the pointy-haired boss, it means you can fire one in three of your staff.
|
|
|
|
|
Your developers are now using this time-sink of a library, leaving them with less time to spend on other things...and the PHB can fire one in three?
The latter was the point the ad was trying to make. But they got it all wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: "What would you do with 33% less development time?"
Testing whatever I developed in such a hurry.
|
|
|
|
|
Productivity is not measured in time. If you're focusing on time, you've lost the plot.
|
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one amazed at the corporate incompetence displayed by some websites? I'm thinking not just of the huge number of broken links, missing images and all the rest, but also of completely useless paywalls.
I used to have a (free, trial) subscription to the Daily Telegraph. When it ended and I got presented with a paywall, it took precisely ONE CLICK on my browser to get past it. The DT paywall is entirely dependent on Javascript and with my "One-click Javascript toggle" Chrome plugin, I now have full, unrestricted access to DT content (should I want it).
Exactly the same with the New York Times website. Disabling JS at the Guardian stops all the nags AND the cookie requests. At other sites (even with JS enabled) if there's a pop-up blocking the screen just use the HTML inspector and delete the hiding DIV; (you may also need to remove the "position:fixed" attribute of the main content div). But it's generally ridiculously insecure.
BTW I don't make a habit of reading stuff I'm supposed to pay for. If I come across a paywall on a site I may see if it goes with JS off, maybe read that article, and not return to the site.
If you're a web developer, do you find that your organisation actually checks what you deliver? As in testing links, forms, and security? Or is it entirely down to the IT department?
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's more expensive to test and develop such paywalls correctly than doing it right would gain.
Most people don't know how to disable a paywall.
|
|
|
|
|
Some sites, even though they made JS toggle not circumvent their paywall, they still didn't make going through the paywall necessary. You just had to do more/different like the deleting the DIV stuff or changing the JS.
I'd guess for some stuff that led to plugins aimed at specific paywalls bringing circumvention even more to the masses than JS toggle.
It probably also meant that content sharing, rather than via a link that brings exposure, just happened via a screenshot/copy-paste instead.
SEO is maybe a big part too for many sites. If they put all their content behind a wall then it won't get indexed. They want their site found when people go searching for things they have.
|
|
|
|
|
I first read your subject line as "corporate incontinence", but it still works as well.
"Taking the piss" as our friends from the UK and OZ would say.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
OTOH, 33% less development needs sounds appealing, but not as good as 33% more development time. 
