"technically" usually means something like "strictly", not "by a completely different metric". work takes time. zig has had a decade of work put into it.
Technically means according to a strict, often legal definition.
The strict definition being we don't count developments that happened before version 1.
Like when we talk about Rust, we don't mention the virtual threads or GC or the @ symbol for GC references. Even though those all happened during its development.
and when people talk about zig, they don't usually mention that zig used to have goto, casting syntax like `T(val)`, a rule that said you couldn't pass containers by value, language-level async, some truly awful syntax for what is now `try` and other operators, etc. both languages took time and work to realize that these features were not for them. very strange to deny that.
also, nitpick: they said zig has been around for ten years. this is, strictly, correct. the zig project has existed for ten years, just like how rust has existed for about 20, now. a project still exists if it is pre-1.0. nobody was talking about versions before you.
`&udm=14` just sends you to the "web" tab of search, which does remove the AI summary, but you also lose the widgets that google puts at the top of search, if you like those (weather, calculator, games, etc). one of my friends recently found that you can add a short invalid filter parameter like `&tbs=1` and it'll give you the main search with no AI but with those widgets if they would normally appear. you do still get the "People also ask" section, but that's probably easily removed with an extension or user script
`-ai` isn't actually a special case that removes the ai overview, it just adds a search filter which removes all results with the word "ai". afaik the ai overview is simply less likely to show up with a filtered search
interestingly, MDN web docs claims at the top of the Web Serial page (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Serial_...) that Chrome does not support it, even though the support table at the bottom shows that it supports all of the features (Firefox doesn't) and has for longer than Firefox
That's because Chrome on Android has a partial implementation of Web Serial. The banner on top is to get information at a glance vs the detailed breakdown of the compatibility table.
well, it is in the "thoughts" section of the author's website. maybe it doesn't belong on HN, but the person who posted it is not the author, so take it up with them. anyway, i agree with most/all of the complaints but if a valuable point were to be made it is probably the funding point. why does this need money?
They bought that TLD and then never did anthing fun with it. I can forgive them for not doing https://google, since that's discouraged apparently, but not even fonts.google? docs.google? mail.google? Apparently once upon a time you could do com.google for an April Fools prank but they didn't even keep a basic redirect. The only thing they ever permanently used it for (afaik) was domains.google, and they sold that to Squarespace. Why even spend the money?
the pattern seems to be that all of these don't use your google account, i suppose their system (through cookies or something similar) depends on the domain google.com somehow.
reply