Yes, especially for applications, and especially for Firefox. The Major version in SemVer increases with any interface change public or private (or it's supposed to). This is important to communicate to users who rely on any 3rd party plugins, or who need to open files created with prior versions of the software, including configuration profiles.
Using Firefox as an example, I use the Firefox UI Fix. If Firefox changes their browser userchrome/layout, this mod breaks. But it is nice that I can tell at a glance when a new Minor version or Patch version releases that it contains no changes that break this mod. Any breaking changes in these versions are bugs in Firefox.
As for higher number versioning. I'm not advocating that Firefox restarts their Major versioning number back to 0. They could skip Major versions and call the next Major version 200 for all I care. The only thing my comment advocated for was including the date in the patch version number.
I prefer the SemVer Major.Minor.Patch approach so I can tell at a glance if the update breaks compatibility or is just bug fixes. Technically the Patch part can be any number as long as it increases each update of that same Minor version, so one could write the versions as AA.BB.YYMMXX where AA is the Major version, BB is the Minor, YY is the two digit year, MM is the month, and XX is just an incrementing number.
I think this approach has the best of both systems.
If you run HRT you can choose to keep the same hardware and interoperability and also have the benefit of a free and open choice of gender. It will require a little research to get started, but there is great documentation on the lgbtqia wiki (mtf btw)*.
Yeah, at first I thought this could be a rom hack, which was interesting to me. But the more I look, it's clearly just an edited picture; Link missing his shadow being the giveaway.
It's interesting how this scene was constructed. The blacksmiths and their table never appear outside except when guiding the one lost blacksmith back home. The old man is usually sleeping in the bar mumbling about his lost son (flute boy) until the pre-credits end sequence where they are reunited in the forest. The text boxes normally have a transparent background, but here it's a darkened floor tile from Sahasrahla's hut.
I always remember the difference by imagining them as lines on a graph. Forward slash is the line with positive slope and backslash is the one with negative slope.
The most convenient userscript for me is this one that automatically likes YouTube videos. It's configurable to be able to: like the video after a specified watch percentage, ignore already disliked videos, only like videos from subscribed channels, and ignore livestreams. I like it enough that I've made a few pull requests to fix it when YouTube changes their UI.
When I have the time, I work on an in-progress local version to implement a few new features including: (1) Support for the YouTube shorts UI. (2) An option for a notification/toast to appear when the video has been liked. (3) An option to check the watch percentage continuously (mutation observer) instead of a user-defined poll rate which sometimes misses liking very short videos in playlists. Eventually I'd like to port something like this as a YouTube ReVanced patch.
I think I had this guy's exact issue and maybe even stumbled upon his comment in that Microsoft support forum thread. It looks very familiar, but I could have just seen the meme before.
My problem was that I needed to do this for 100+ files, so using the UI individually for each file was out of the question. The eventual solution I found was in this tutorial for adding a context menu entry that changes folder/file ownership recursively. It's been very useful!
I read this post and my first thought was "oh, it's like how fans post videos of fun glitches in video games and then speedrunners sometimes end up finding a use for them in order to beat the game faster."
Scientific progress is just glitch-hunting and speed/challenge-running.
I know you're mostly joking, but that might have actually been my bad. I edited to add the spoiler tag minutes after I posted the link (mostly as a joke) even though this is probably one of the most well known plot points ever. It might have still done that if the link was inside a spoiler tag though.
I didn't consider the bot when I commented, but next time I'll remember not to have the clickable link text be the spoiler. That way the bot doesn't repeat it.
BleakBluets @ BleakBluets @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 69Joined 2 yr. ago
Yes, especially for applications, and especially for Firefox. The Major version in SemVer increases with any interface change public or private (or it's supposed to). This is important to communicate to users who rely on any 3rd party plugins, or who need to open files created with prior versions of the software, including configuration profiles.
Using Firefox as an example, I use the Firefox UI Fix. If Firefox changes their browser userchrome/layout, this mod breaks. But it is nice that I can tell at a glance when a new Minor version or Patch version releases that it contains no changes that break this mod. Any breaking changes in these versions are bugs in Firefox.
As for higher number versioning. I'm not advocating that Firefox restarts their Major versioning number back to 0. They could skip Major versions and call the next Major version 200 for all I care. The only thing my comment advocated for was including the date in the patch version number.