I don’t know anything about web development but, is it really fair to say it should work exactly the same with JavaScript turned off? If that were achievable why would it be there in the first place? I assume the graceful degradation concept is supposed to be that as you strip away more and more layers of additional functionality, the core functions remain or at least some kind of explanation is given to the user why things don’t work.
Yeh it was a joke I definitely wouldn’t recommend that ANYWHERE! It’s just that the original advice to which I was responding, while actually probably quite sound, had this funny kind of old man “you kids should get outside” kind of feel to it that I was riffing off and taking to extreme for fun. I hoped the “get your hair cut” part of it would make that a bit more obvious like a grumpy dad in the 60s telling the longhairs to get off their lawn. I probably didn’t do enough to make this obvious and now it’s coming across as sincere. Woops.
Get your haircut while you’re at it, and do some national service!
Pineapple is a common ingredient in burgers in Australia and while a classic Aussie burger doesn’t include pickles to go along with that, given pickles are still a common burger ingredient as well, it wouldn’t be totally outside the bounds of plausibility for someone to request or put pickles in there along with the pineapple. They’re ok together. I wouldn’t say it’s the best idea but it’s not a total bust. I’m surprised it’s not a delicious combo which I thought they would be when I tried that once, figured there’d be lots of textural contrast and even more of the salty and sweet and tangy combo that the additional of the pineapple was supposed to bring on its own but alas something about them doesn’t play all that nice together.
I’m fairly sure I tried pickles on pizza and didn’t like it, or maybe I just concluded I wouldn’t because I didn’t think hot pickles would be nice. But that pizza looks damn good.
I thought it was kinda mandatory for ice cream trucks to play Greensleeves.
Still got them here in Australia. They’ve always been a rarity and somehow they’re always somewhere else where you can’t see them yet they sound close by but they seem about as common now as my childhood in the 90s.
Ever had any replies?
I’ve seen a lot of various 3 word combos mostly revolving around shit and shit adjacent coloured eyeware and that was my thought as well but one thing I think everyone’s missed is that it you want to try and stick to that template so it’s recognisable as the antonym for the phrase but still change enough of it to be clever, we should change tinted as well and I think “tainted” is perfect since it sounds almost the same and has a similar meaning in context but still adds it’s own negative connotations.
“Shit tainted glasses” is the chef’s kiss in my mind. Unless anyone’s got something that means the same or almost the same as glasses but also adds additional negative overtones.
I had this happen once and I had a hell of a time trying to find a way around their bullshit. I finally just emailed them and asked for a real tracking number not a link and they actually obliged.
Kinda… Slightly more helpful, but almost as vague. I’m advising against opting for solutions that are technically correct but would be more difficult for the average person to get right most of the time.
The OP’s CAPTCHA as a case in point, it’s frustrating for them because they’re ostensibly asked to enter the characters that they see but there are several and the length of the string of characters is not known and some characters are hard to read and depending on how you interpret it you could be being asked to enter all these characters or you could look at them and say there’s a background set and a foreground set in which case, which one is the correct one? That’s at least 3 different ways to do it and that’s assuming that what appears to us a representation of depth is indeed intended to be the basis of separation for 2 sets of characters and not some other arbitrary categorisation or no categorisation. Sounds complicated and ambiguous. Except, it’s much harder to read the background set, and the idea that there would even be some other way of categorising, if it occurs to anyone at all would be impossible to work out since if it’s there, it’s not discernible. The easiest way is to just read the letters that aren’t partially covered up and also smaller than the more obvious, easier to read, not occluded characters and disregard the ones behind it. What’s easiest to do also most of the time turns out to have been the hidden instruction for what you were meant to do.
There’s no explicit instruction to do this, it’s wishy washy and hard to abstract for different CAPTCHAs which is why this advice doesn’t look a whole lot better than “just guess right” but in a way that’s kind of part of why they still have some effectiveness, they’re unspoken rules that humans Intuit. Where some of us, like me before kinda “getting it”, go wrong, is in overthinking and over analysing it. “but what if they mean this? I mean technically it could…” If you’re thinking like that, odds are you’re barking up the wrong tree and the solution is way less sophisticated.
As others have pointed out, it’s probably the foreground characters. They’re easier to read and less ambiguous from occlusion by other characters.
In general I find you can resolve technical ambiguities or possible loopholes to instructions in these things by asking yourself “what would most people do, especially if not really thinking about it much?” That’s particularly helpful for situations where you have to select all the tiles with x object in them. Often you’ll see that technically there’s a little bit of the object in squares other than the most obvious ones that everyone would have selected and you ask yourself “does that count? Technically a little bit of it’s in this square” but if you just pretend you didn’t notice that and only go for the most dead obvious squares you end up passing. Once I realised this the number of times I failed CAPTCHAs significantly reduced. For some reason the only ones that continued to be a problem were the click a checkbox ones that seemingly analyse your mouse movement because somehow I apparently move like a robot.
Other than in some very niche and select circumstances that I honestly can’t really think of, nobody is going to think it’s cool. However if you like it and want to do it then that’s really more important than if others will think it’s cool. However, I should add some caveats to that.
In some environments, if you’re young than school especially, can be very cruel and very conformist. In those sorts of environments, being “weird” can seriously make you miserable because you’ll be ostracised and while being authentic and true to yourself is important you’ll need to decide how important this specifically is to you, because if it’s not that important then in a context like school I’d say don’t risk it.
However if you want to try it out sometimes around friends who already like you then why not? Just try to keep an eye on people’s reactions and see if they start to get tired of it or roll their eyes or visibly cringe, that’s a sign you’re doing it too much and it’s getting irritating. Definitely don’t change your entire speech pattern to whatever you decide equates to “old timey”, all the time in every conversation with everyone, it won’t land well.
The article mentions that. They supposedly released 2 versions, one “enhanced” to help make the relevant parts of the image easier to see, which certainly matches the description of “modified” and the other, the same footage but described as “raw” implying that it wasn’t “modified” in that way.
There are a lot of plausible and likely explanations for the Adobe metadata schema information that is in the file that don’t involve deceptively manipulating footage to hide something that was in that footage before public presentation, then again, given the circumstances and supposed rationale behind publicly presenting this footage, failing to release it with untouched unmodified metadata from the camera original source files is not a good look. Failing to then answer questions about that makes it look even worse. This is is especially true when, although there is no answer they could give that would actually totally convince everyone, there are as I said many plausible explanations they could have offered and yet they were just silent.
Ironically, as is so often the case with anything like this, depending on the interpretive lens you’re using this issue with the metadata helps confirm either assertion, that there was cover up and Epstein was murdered, or that there was no such cover up and he really did kill himself. Obviously, the fact that it’s modified lends credence to the idea they’re hiding something because one might expect that if they weren’t it’d be easy to just supply the footage with metadata more reflective of a surveillance system than Adobe software. However one could also say that, modifying metadata in a way that is undetectable should actually be relatively easy and the fact that they couldn’t be bothered to do that, or didn’t know how, or never thought of metadata being present in the first place could suggest it’s not deceptive skullduggery so much as technical incompetence and sloppiness - too sloppy for competent conspiracists. On the other hand, they could also be sloppy and incompetent conspiracists who just did an awful job. That’s not altogether unlikely either since the entire supposed suicide they potentially conspired to have people believe is a very suspicious cover story to begin with so not exactly an expertly conceived plan, more improvisational and done in a hurry which would kind of track with them botching later actions to take the heat off.
Got him! Send in the seals.
There’s stuff on there I didn’t download… Hundreds of gigs. Eek.
Ok, I’m seeing this a lot and I get it, and despite my lack of expertise in the field I can sympathize with the sentiment. Perhaps those replies are answering more in the spirit of the post than the letter.
It’s just that the title asked if no one knew what this ‘graceful degradation’ concept was anymore and the text used the example specifically that the page should be exactly the same with or without JavaScript switched on which, without trying to be facetious, sounded kind of logically impossible.