Elements on the top of the screen have virtually infinite height, and elements in the corners have infinite height and width. You can't aim "too high" for something at the top of the screen.
Status bars on top don't make sense if you have tabs on top. Now your tabs are infinitely smaller, and aiming at them requires a lot more effort.
Mac's original design had the menubar on top, and its windows didn't have tabs, so it all worked fine together. That's not the case for browsers with tabs on top.
The linked article seems to imply that this remains a good design choice even today:
> The use of this rule can be seen for example in MacOS, which always places the menu bar on the top left edge of the screen instead of the current program's windowframe.
I guess now that the browser is the one app you probably spend the most amount of time in, it might make a little less sense? Android's lack of a menu bar system makes it make very little sense there.
I wonder how relevant Fitt's law is with bigger screens and the drastically changed ratio between mouse hand movement and cursor movement on screen. It used to be that you could reach a screen corner with a very simple flick of the mouse hand wrist. But that doesn't feel the same way anymore on modern hardware.
Depends on your configuration, I guess. I just tried this with my mx master with its standard resolution (so no ridiculous 800000 dpi gaming mouse) on a 4k 32" at 100% under windows. I can easily reach a corner with a quick flick of the wrist.
FWIW, Apple's known to have a slightly more aggressive mouse/trackpoint acceleration curve to account for this. (In retrospect it's probably why Apple went all out on luxuriously large trackpads.)
> "Microsoft has received a limited number of reports […]
Interesting working: one night interpret this as “a few reports”, but they’re technically saying “a finite amount of reports”, without really implying if there were a few or many cases.
> On the bright side, using these weapon grade malware is burning exploits and also showing current state and techniques of Russian cyberwarfare which defender can learn a lot from.
Or perhaps they used an already-known malware to measure defensive capabilities without showing any of their cards.
Cyber-defensive measures aren't very useful though. Once malware is known to exist, you don't "reveal a capability" by detecting it - it all boils down to basically signature analysis, or just good standard practice (air gaps, software supply chain accountability etc).
This is vastly different to real world military systems, where there are a lot more variables and no guarantees - i.e. countries have limited numbers of air defense systems and missiles, the missiles have finite non-zero flight times, the physics of detection systems and sensors are not absolute etc.
The real world is just more complicated, so the value of buzzing someone's airspace reveals a lot more information then "huh, guess they didn't click on that email".
No, of course not. They want to also measure response in the physical aspects (like electricians thot would have to drive some time to arrive on site). They're testing end-to-end, so to say. There's no testing like testing in production.
Sounds like a really cool endeavour. I had no idea that ISP infrastructure was so heavily centralised. Hope the author succeeds in their quest to improve on this. I love that they're using simpler, cheaper hardware for this. Essentially, it sounds like it could reduce vendor lock-in for ISPs.
I packaged docker-rootless Arch (AUR) and Alpine (community) downstream long ago. I'm sure it's available for other distros too nowadays, although it wasn't at the time.
Docker could definitely do a much better job of making packaging easier. The docker-rootless just includes an sh script which has several of the files inline and writes them to the target location… assuming you're making a user-only installation (even though other potions of the setup require root intervention).
So packaging this requires reverse engineering how the installation process works, and extracting some of those inline files from the sh script, and figuring out where they'd be installed for a system-wide location.
Yes the stats don't make sense. It appears to be an issue with StatsCounter.
The Search Engine wikipedia article [1] has a section on Russia and East Asia market share, which confirms that the roll up used for world wide counts is off, unless the number of people using the Internet is drastically different in some of the countries.
I guess they'd argue that the people in China don't count, because people in China don't get to choose Google. But yeah, the stats they use from "StatCounter" are clearly not representative for what the world uses.
Market share is based on factual consumption numbers however subsidized or regulated by a government not free will.
Choice/Free will is an arbitrary line in the sand, one could argue how much choice we have about consuming google search when it is "85-90"% monopolistic business with well documented anti-competitive practices.
Chinese consumers perhaps have more choice than we do, Baidu is only about 60% market share. They do get to choose, it more that Google is not one of the options available to them, it is not like if not Baidu then it is a Phone Book.
You can argue that people outside of China don't get to choose something other than Google. Sure, there are recent pushes with default search engine choices and similar initiatives, but there is a reason why Google is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to be the default search engine.
Google is only blocked in places where it would already be hard for a company with morals to work in, if not outright blocked as well. This probably represents traffic globally, excluding those places.
Instead of downvoting blindly, please state which countries are currently blocking Google that would willingly allow Kagi, a AI/Privacy focused search engine company to exist in their domain? The results may surprise you!
Google doesn't, Kagi seems to (hopefully). I meant this more as a jab at countries willing to block Google, as they're generally dictatorships / authoritarian in nature. Oh the irony, as an american saying this in 2026....
Google and Facebook would be very happy to operate in China, but they're too closely tied to the US intelligence apparatus to agree to the terms that China requires.
Not quite: they're per-profile, but the path for the profile is not deterministic by default. So you need to first create profiles, exit, and then manually paste the preferences.
I haven't found any way to programatically create profiles.
Status bars on top don't make sense if you have tabs on top. Now your tabs are infinitely smaller, and aiming at them requires a lot more effort.
Mac's original design had the menubar on top, and its windows didn't have tabs, so it all worked fine together. That's not the case for browsers with tabs on top.
Along the way, it seems most designers have forgotten about Fitt's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts's_law#Implications_for_U...
reply