At the very least I'd add release cadence to it and the quality of releases. Mature, good software will have hotfixes and patch releases every now and then. But not in every release and certainly not 50% of the changes. In the same sense I will often look at the effort put in changelogs. If they took the effort of putting things in category, writing about possible breaking changes, etc it is a possible indicator of some level of quality. At the very least I will have a lot more faith in software with good changelogs compared to something that is just a list of the last N commit messages.
To be honest, these days I have more faith in an application or library with a moderate development pace where maybe the last commit wasn't 2 seconds ago co-authored by claude (in the most blatant examples).
The same is true for amount of commits, the type of commits, release cadence and the amount of fixes and hotfixes in releases. I don't feel like being a glorified alpha tester so I look for maturity in a project.
Which more often than not means that, yes there needs be activity. But, it is also fine if it was two days ago and there is a clear sign of the same pattern over a longer period. Combined with a stable release cycle, sane versioning and clear changelogs that aren't just a list of the last 10 commit messages.
On your point of stars, I think they used to be a valid metric in a similar category. Namely, community behind the software. But it has been a while since that has been true. It certainly hasn't been for a while, ever since I saw these star tracking graphs pop up on repos I knew that there was no sense in paying attention to them anymore.
> That’s not to say that there is no microplastics pollution, the U-M researchers are quick to say.
>
> “We may be overestimating microplastics, but there should be none. There’s still a lot out there, and that’s the problem,”
> That’s not to say that there is no microplastics pollution, the U-M researchers are quick to say.
>
> “We may be overestimating microplastics, but there should be none. There’s still a lot out there, and that’s the problem,”
And with some actual numbers, when digging in further:
> They found that on average, the gloves imparted about 2,000 false positives per millimeter squared area.
> Clough prepared the substrates while wearing nitrile gloves, which is recommended by the guidance of literature in the microplastics field. But when she examined the substrates to estimate how many microplastics she captured, the results were many thousands of times greater than what she expected to find.
The reason this is important is that one flawed dataset reports a hopeless situation; the other at least provides a “if we stop now” message.
I opened the article and read the first paragraph. Then skimmed the rest.
As others pointed out: the fact you can do this in CSS tells you everything you need to know if you consider what CSS is for. Even w/o ever looking at the spec or understanding how it came to be.
i don't see what you mean? it's a rendering technology
i guess if you're someone still stuck on the "web browsers are for displaying static documents" and "css is for prettifying markup" thing, then sure, I bet what you said sounds real witty
It really should be illegal. Companies aren't going to do it themselves as it is a huge potential revenue stream.
So much so that it effectively has become the main focus of some companies who we as consumers still perceive as online stores/marketplaces. Specifically sponsored search results apparently can become a bigger income stream than the one from actual sales themselves.
Which is great for these companies, terrible for us consumers.
It's one thing to enforce contracts but another for government to dictate how private platforms monetize their own property. If ads make the service worse, the answer is competition and exit, not government bans. No one is forcing you to use these platforms.
That argument ignores the reality of the current market structure. The "competition and exit" theory only works when valid alternatives actually exist.
Right now, we are dealing with effective monopolies and duopolies. You can't just exit the App Store if you have an iPhone, and Amazon has cornered the market so hard that switching isn't really an option for most people. When competition is dead, the market can't self-correct because consumers have nowhere else to go.
Also, "monetizing their own property" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your take. These platforms already charge: transaction fees, commissions, listing fees, higher product prices baked in, and in many cases consumers are paying directly (Prime, app purchases, ride fares). Injecting ads is basically double charging. On top of that it shifts the platform from "help me find the best match" to "whoever pays the platform wins".
Honestly, unless you are in a C-suite role, I'm not sure why you would defend a model that actively works against you as a consumer.
Sadly that is probably true.
At the very least I'd add release cadence to it and the quality of releases. Mature, good software will have hotfixes and patch releases every now and then. But not in every release and certainly not 50% of the changes. In the same sense I will often look at the effort put in changelogs. If they took the effort of putting things in category, writing about possible breaking changes, etc it is a possible indicator of some level of quality. At the very least I will have a lot more faith in software with good changelogs compared to something that is just a list of the last N commit messages.
reply