SwooshBakery624 [they/them]@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 21 hours agoHow shitty standards stick aroundprogramming.devimagemessage-square64linkfedilinkarrow-up1353arrow-down121
arrow-up1332arrow-down1imageHow shitty standards stick aroundprogramming.devSwooshBakery624 [they/them]@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 21 hours agomessage-square64linkfedilink
minus-squareJoe@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up35arrow-down5·21 hours agoSomeone is an optimist… Why photoshop an XKCD comic?
minus-squareIgnotum@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up36·edit-219 hours agoI assume they mean the new standard, good or bad as it might be, simply isn’t adopted, so we are still stuck with the 14 bad ones Edit: I misread it, but this would also make for a good variation of the original :P
minus-squarestormdelay@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up53·20 hours agoI read it more like the new, better standard is never developed because someone used the real xkcd as an argument against making the new standard
minus-squareIgnotum@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up15·20 hours agoOh wow yeah not sure how i didn’t notice that she responds with the original comic, you’re absolutely right
minus-squareEheran@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·20 hours agoI have another way to see it: There is a good new standard but the bad old ones stick around. Like Torx, there is still a ton of Philips etc.
minus-squareEheran@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·8 hours agoI know. Hence the change, there can be good standards but they do not magically make the others disappear.
minus-squareSigntist@bookwyr.melinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down1·18 hours agoPretty sure it’s trying to say these people would have maybe made a better standard, but didn’t try because they read the original comic and didn’t want to make a 15th shitty standard.
minus-squareapotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up22arrow-down1·20 hours ago“Why Photoshop an XKCD comic?” because they were making a point directly related to the XKCD comic?
Someone is an optimist…
Why photoshop an XKCD comic?
I assume they mean the new standard, good or bad as it might be, simply isn’t adopted, so we are still stuck with the 14 bad ones
Edit: I misread it, but this would also make for a good variation of the original :P
I read it more like the new, better standard is never developed because someone used the real xkcd as an argument against making the new standard
Oh wow yeah not sure how i didn’t notice that she responds with the original comic, you’re absolutely right
I have another way to see it: There is a good new standard but the bad old ones stick around. Like Torx, there is still a ton of Philips etc.
That’s the normal version.
I know. Hence the change, there can be good standards but they do not magically make the others disappear.
Pretty sure it’s trying to say these people would have maybe made a better standard, but didn’t try because they read the original comic and didn’t want to make a 15th shitty standard.
“Why Photoshop an XKCD comic?” because they were making a point directly related to the XKCD comic?