QGIS is one of the small number of truly great open source desktop apps.

Ah, that'll be useful. The hardest thing about adding a new project to my site is finding a new HyperCard/System 6 icon. https://mk.gg/

Hey, I really loved the fonts on your website.

For the past 10 years I've being using terminus bitmap font, so I have strong opinions about it. The only reason I prefer Firefox is because it supports bitmap.

Reading your website on my phone made my day! Lovely fonts/aesthetics

Wow, I must be in my 40s because I love your site :)

Did you find the "hot corner" though?

omg immediate nostalgia. I can still picture the After Dark floppies!

I get that I'm critiquing you within your apparent wheelhouse, but this aesthetic also matters a lot to me.

  img[data-astro-cid-vnzlvqnm] {
    width: 48px;
    height: 48px;
    image-rendering: pixelated;
    object-fit: contain;
    margin-bottom: 0.5rem;
  }

I understand the goal here, but it works really poorly IMO when the source images are generally 32x32 (and some of them are smaller to arbitrary degrees because the content has been cropped — this doesn't seem to distort aspect ratios, but e.g. the "eye" icon gets stretched to fill the space, and thus scales with a bespoke 48/25 factor). Meanwhile the hover cursor looks pixel-precise, but definitely too big compared to the icons. (It seems to have been scaled 2x ahead of time, from an authentic 16x16.) The background scale is also pixel-precise (I don't know whether it's 2x scaled just to scale it, or to look like a 2x2 "pattern") so the difference in approaches is just really jarring to me.

(I think the font is also doing some anti-aliasing; probably can't really control that. It looks really cool, though.)

I would really recommend not cropping to content, and either using integer-scale boxes or just accepting some sampling interpolation. Or just leaving everything at 1:1 scale. It'd be noticeably physically smaller than authentic for typical desktop displays, but that's just hardware doing what it does. (And as it stands, it might be bigger than authentic!) Bonus points for a `@media` query on device resolution to make the choice.

(Edit: after reading through https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/P... I'm not really sure Firefox is working as advertised...? But I think x1.5 scaling for pixel art is always going to involve compromise.)

As I mentioned, images are the hardest to do because beyond the core icons, the available graphics vary massively in size. Displaying them at "actual size" makes them far too small to be usable on a modern screen. I think you're also probably misremembering the scale of the cursor. It's not perfect, but it's not meant to be 16x16. Take a look at https://hcsimulator.com/

The approach I took is the best I could manage without hand-modifying every image. You're right that some of them are not as good as they should be. The ones that I did hand-make (the background, as you noticed, and the window chrome) are the ones that are pixel-perfect.

The fonts took a lot of work to control the anti-aliasing. You'll see they vary quite a bit between monitors, OSs and browsers. Generally they look best in Firefox on a Mac retina display, because that's what I created them in.

> Displaying them at "actual size" makes them far too small to be usable on a modern screen

Man, I have ancient (er, well, that's a bit awkward in context!) stuff, I know. But these things are still just fine at ~96dpi IMO.

> I think you're also probably misremembering the scale of the cursor. It's not perfect, but it's not meant to be 16x16.

I recall 16x16 cursors (System 6 CURS resource) and 32x32 icons, so I expect the cursor to be visually 1/2 the height/width of the icons. You have it effectively at 2/3.

> on a Mac retina display

These basically don't exist in my world. But again (or maybe I was unclear?), @media queries can check for dpi and not just viewport size.

This isn't a government body. It's owned by the TV networks, and makes it easier for companies to get ads pre-apporoved without needing to submit them individually to each network.

Do US TV networks have any rules about what can be shown in ads? Because I somewhat doubt that a company could submit whatever they want and the network has to air it.

The private company "somehow" gets to approve ads because it's owned by the TV networks that air the ads. Better than needing separate approval from each network.

And yet still far worse than a publicly owned body that is accountable to voters rather than shareholders.

You might as well argue that it's better for visa to regulate the financial sector "because you wouldnt want the banks doing it individually".

Or that you should be happy with a punch in the face because a kick in the teeth is worse.

I'm not saying whether or not they're planning to back down, but this sentence doesn't imply that. The "now" is clearly meant to be in reference to the fact they've not in the past.

No government can stand up to the might of La Liga

Most of the replies to this seem to think it's referring to some kind of secret government datacenter. It's us-east-1, and every other cloud provider's US East and GOV zones, which are all in NVA

It's referring to us-east-1

Sure, but the specific NSA datacenter that stores copies of every piece of data that transits the internet is in Utah, not Virginia.

Loads of examples here https://x.com/jeffdean/status/2024525132266688757

This might make sense if there weren't shops selling large bottles right after security. Ones full of highly flammable liquids, even.

I am not sure any of it makes real sense, it's just a variation of the "why" I picked up somewhere (that it's both).

But yes, that's easily worked around in the manner people brought up already (I did think of duty free bottles, but not camera cases, that is a good one).

Or if you couldnt simply take a large empty bottle through.

Howver if you rely on 10 people to take 100ml each that’s a far larger conspiracy and far less likely than one person taking 1l through.

Like what? Alcohol isn't flammable unless it's over 63%, and you aren't allowed to bring duty free alcohol on the plane.

Alcohol is flammable around 40%. French cooks aren’t using overproof brandy to do flambé.

Gunpowder doused in alcohol is, very famously for people interested in the history of rum, flammable if the alcohol is around 57.1% or higher, but straight alcohol/water without gunpowder is flammable at a lower strength than that.

Duty-free purchases are all hand carried into the aircraft, and "tamper-proof" bags are nothing of the sort.

Tamper evident, a very different thing.