Browsers are permissive not because it's technically superior but as a concession for the end user who still wants to be able to use a poorly built website, and they're competing with browsers who will bend over backwards to render that crappy website so that they look good and your browser looks bad.
It's not a concession you want to make unless you really have to.
Well, my point is that there's unique pressure for browsers to be permissive for practical reasons beyond Postel's law even if you were building a browser in 2025 and the whole internet reset to xhtml.
And that's because the end-user is at the mercy of, but not party to, an over the air interface between the producer and consumer that you can't verify ahead of time.
So if you're consuming a stream of supposed xhtml `<p>foo<p>bar</p>`, you have to decide if you want to screw the user for the producer's mistake for a single fuck up in the website's footer.
HTML is a nightmare that had to be reverse engineered as in, rebuilt with proper engineering standards in mind, several times. HTML and CSS are both quite horrible.
Concerning, maybe. Definitely not surprising. One’s technical ability to do something has, if anything, a negative correlation with their ability to value and manage their own time. The author’s justification is absolutely ridiculous, hands down. I simply pray that they’re never in charge of deploying another human’s time effectively.
Thank you Hacker News commenter for lecturing someone on Human Resources policy. The ultimate scope creep from someone explaining why this feature might have an iota of value.
The SECOND a tool that you use add a feature that you want because “um, we don’t think that your business should work like that, actually”, there’d be an angry rant on the front page of this very site.
Are you genuinely not reading the comments that you’re replying to?
OP did mot solicit or show that there would be any value in people listing ways that one could circumvent this with preparation.
We all know. You aren’t adding anything to the discussion. Nerds love ignoring the cost of human effort if it gives them an opportunity to show that they know something.
I'm definitely reading the comments. I'm replying to a very specific comment that made a very specific argument.
There are lots of arguments I find convincing for this being effective. But not OP's. OP is saying they already do these recordings regularly, but "preplanning" would stop them? No way. They already did all the necessary preplanning by the time they finished typing their comment.
Preplanning could be meaningful for other people, but not for them and people like them.
I only mentioned price to make it clear that the level of effort to make the purchase falls within the level of effort they have already established.
I don’t do “video, audio, and normal web browsing” for a living, and I don’t find macOS unbearable.
For the love of God, please show an iota of acknowledgment that this could just be a matter of personal taste, instead of immediately resorting to such absolutist statement. It’s very telling that your portrayal of “I don’t like this” is “this is surely unbearable for anyone that does the sort of work that I do. Anyone that makes this work for them is doing this OTHER class of things”. And I’ve got absolutely zero doubt that you consider the things that you listed as being ‘lesser’ than your ‘real computer work’.
Please stop moving the goalposts. It makes it even more blatant that you’re engaging in a kneejerk emotional argument that doesn’t belong on this website.
You’re not being clever like you think you are. “They could simply build something else” is … something that truly everybody knows. That’s not the point.
