Because in web development there are compatibility tables of what features work with which browser. If a developer has used a feature poorly supported, they either haven't done their homework, or intentionally made that call.
In web development, most reputable Front End Devs would not choose bleeding edge, barely supported features even if the temptation was there because the user comes first. Generally, you wait until it has been adopted by the main browsers (chrome, safari, ff).
I didn't drink or have sex for a big proportion of my life (until 16). Was quite happy to ditch old habits.
The thing is, chrome was probably built for spying.
Never noticed an issue and if websites using only chrome supported features, it's an issue with the website, not the browser.
I'd rotate it so it starts to grow to the light and give it a bit more balance.
I'd personally try it outside and see his it gets on with the drainage holes, can always bring back in if it gets sad.
Nice looking guitar. What is it?
The issue is your mindset.
You write bugs because you have something to learn. You're so focussed on what you're making, that when a learning opportunity arises, you are not open to it. You're just looking to speedrun/hack it.
You need to drop the delivery pressure and enjoy the journey. When a bug comes up, celebrate it "ah, you got me here. Interesting. What am I missing?". Then you slow down, focus not on solving it, but understanding it. If you understand it, the solving is easy.
If you consider learning "not progressing", then you need to reflect on what benefit the pressure and delivery focus is.
In agile development. You do a little, release. Otherwise it is too big and may never be done. The fact they committed resources to improve this is a positive. The hope is they build on it and add more options.
However, if they get trashed for trying, they and many other companies may not try. Why spend money to get a bad reputation when the spending nothing creates less I'll will to the company. That is ultimately the decision Product Owners and Designers will weigh up.
I think for progress, the best approach is maybe "positive first step but more options are needed for non-bonary for this to really make players feel comfortable".
From a technical perspective, separating pronoun hard coding from the models gives more scope to give more options in the future, however, as someone mentioned, there is a lot of art work needed on assets and animations so the new shapes function the same in all cases.
I know enough, little one. Maybe you do.
You're insufferable. Surprised you still ain't on reddit. That's where the corporate bootlickers are. I guess Lemmy.world is the next best place.
No. It's when bugs and crashes happen, and trying to identify how. Such as stack traces for example, or memory usage when an app keels over.
I'm not here to market FF, I'm here trying to counter balance the Firefox haters that spend so much hate to trash the only real legitimate chance we have of Google not dictating web standards. I don't know why so many people shill for billion dollar companies. Do they love Google that much, or are they simply useful idiots?
It's open source. You're assuming this is telemetry without having an idea. Could be diagnostics, could be pocket, could be sync check.
Without evidence, sounds like a load of FUD.
It's ironic you call me dense.
Not perfectly optimised is fine, but non-functional isn't acceptable. I've never seen a quirk personally, and quirks aren't a good reason to help maintain Google's monopoly on web standards.
You may say less than 5% is fine, but it could be the margins in a low margin industry. 2% could be 40% of the profit.
I haven't seen a team operate where a senior isn't checking it.
Usually the bleeding edge stuff is used by small companies trying to establish themselves because they have nothing to lose and no reputation to protect.
Plus, when you got Browser Stack, you catch a lot of problems like this.