Can it view PNGs that are larger than 16k by 16k pixels (90MB)? I’ve had trouble with that today with Linux Mint’s default viewer.

You’re absolutely right. In my mind “feature parity” got garbled into “backwards compatibility”.

Email to all:

“Due to budget constraints, resources will shift from $oldThingy to $newThingy. As a result, $oldThingy’s availability can no longer be maintained at the previous level.”

Then randomly kill oldThingy for more and more hours each day.

location /old_api {
  redirect /new_api
}

(can’t be bothered to check the syntax).

“The other 98% of the codebase.”

One of the Ursas could have been The Game of Ur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Game_of_Ur

A piece of whose mind? What can I do with it? Consult it? Or do I have to incorporate it into my own mind, such that it becomes indistinguishable?

LF line endings.

ALL HAIL THE PROXY

“The proxy failed to fetch the media from the server”

“You and your entire family” means “All life on Earth”.

That should make the decision somewhat easier.

https://xkcd.com/703/

Real coders program in assembly.

I didn’t know what XCode was, so I read the first three words of its Wikipedia article.

Xcode is Apple’s

And suddenly, all surprise vanished.

I’m not a super-savvy user. Can someone explain to me why I should care about X vs Wayland? Everything seems to work with X, and as I’ve just read, many programs don’t support Wayland. So will this transition just lead to lots of broken software once someone decides they won’t ship with X by default anymore?

json doesn’t have ints, it has Numbers, which are ieee754 floats.

No. numbers in JSON have arbitrary precision. The standard only specifies that implementations may impose restrictions on the allowed values.

This specification allows implementations to set limits on the range and precision of numbers accepted. Since software that implements IEEE 754 binary64 (double precision) numbers [IEEE754] is generally available and widely used, good interoperability can be achieved by implementations that expect no more precision or range than these provide, in the sense that implementations will approximate JSON numbers within the expected precision. A JSON number such as 1E400 or 3.141592653589793238462643383279 may indicate potential interoperability problems, since it suggests that the software that created it expects receiving software to have greater capabilities for numeric magnitude and precision than is widely available.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8259.html#section-6