And you can do that at any board state, so if it starts with like 16 white squares you can make one or two greedy moves to minimize white squares, then do your memorize trick.
Interesting, and black magic as far as I'm concerned. How does that algorithm translate onto the Rubik's cube (which I evidently never learned to solve)?
If you think of each button press as a matrix being added to the board state where only the row and column are set to 1, along with the commutative nature of the moves (order doesn't matter), then as long as the total number of "flips" from the cumulative matrices of moves is odd, then it will reset the board.
Mathematically I might say that the system's precomputed solution vector is readily apparent.
I’m pretty sure this case is solvable too. Click the white block, then click all the blocks which turned white after that. This flips each block twice (bringing them back to their original state), except for the original white block which was only flipped once.
It solves many of the pain points Tether[0] tried to solve.
For example it helps when the anchoring element is inside of an oveflow hidden/scroll container, but geometrically you need the tethered element to sit/extend outside of the container (so—for now at least—its DOM node needs to be outside of the container).
I’m confused, but maybe two wrongs here do make a right. Please allow me to explain.
Putting aside for the moment that I personally find Apple’s iOS 26 design objectionable[1], I don’t understand why `backdrop-filter: blur` is the focus of recent implementations jumping on the Liquid Glass hype train.
Using background blur to create UI layer separation (often in combination with darkening/saturation or other contrast enhancements) has been around for over a decade on iOS and almost as long on the web. So what’s new here?
Adding to my confusion, I’m a bit surprised folks here think this is so challenging in CSS. A few commenters have pointed to great implementations elsewhere, but I think they’re underselling them.
Plainly: the solution that involves `backdrop-filter: filter(#filter)` where `#filter` references an inline SVG embedded with `<feImage/>` and `<feDisplacementMap/>` works very convincingly well.
This implementation choose to hard-code `<feImage href="data:image/png;base64,..."/>`. But if glass3d.dev chose to implement 3d highlights in a similar fashion (and wanted to support e.g. a dynamic `border-radius`) this image could easily be rendered in the browser runtime in canvas, and dumped into the CSS using `toDataURL()`. Similarly, a component library with a CSS pre-processor could generate these for any static shape at build-time.
Coming back to the why/should for a second though.
[1] In its current realization, Liquid Glass cannot effectively replace what blur accomplishes. Because Liquid Glass layers are more transparent, the contrast issues are real, and the spectral highlights distract the eye as much as (or more than) they help make up for that lack of contrast. It draws attention to the eye where blur would relax it. It’s a UI meant for an XR system (where it arguably solves a real problem, much like a HUD does in a video game) hacked into devices where it makes no sense, all in the name of a “unified OS” design language.
If any aspect of Liquid Glass is successful it will be when it’s used sparingly to delight in places that are low stakes and where other affordances are present (like a small circular button floating in the corner of the screen with hardware concentricity). A circle shape’s refractions would be smaller, softer, more symmetrical, and therefore arguably less noisy/distracting—in a way resembling a softer blurry background.
Which brings me full circle back to two wrongs.
This website doesn’t do anything new, but that’s why it’s good. Because the truth is, Apple failed to deliver a Siri-based LLM on a schedule it announced and is now trying to distract us with some shiny new thing. Damn, it worked.
> If any aspect of Liquid Glass is successful it will be when it’s used sparingly to delight in places that are low stakes and where other affordances are present
I fully agree with you there. Though I like the Liquid Glass look overall, I think Apple is overusing it. It definitely shouldn’t be a background for paragraph-sized text (e.g., I can’t read half the text in banners on my phone).
Some context about this project:
- I’m not trying to recreate Liquid Glass (though happy to chat about it)
- Goal: Production-usable → must at least work on current (desktop and mobile) versions of Chrome, Safari, and Firefox, on both Apple and PC/Android devices
- Goal: Optimize the developer experience (more relevant to the glass SCSS library I’m working on) → ideally, people can add a class (plus an optional wrapper) and it just works in most tech stacks.
So my intended value adds are aesthetic polish and ease of use, rather than raw innovation.
Thank you for sharing potential implementation solutions. I'll research them and see if I can wrangle them to work cross-browser.
We also published as part of this release some documentation for the so-called “Docs engine” which powers these new docs, which may somewhat answer this question.
(Note: They currently live within the Workers docs site for now but will get a proper home soon.)
With respect to the information architecture and content design, much of that is discussed in the Contributor’s Guide [1] and Docs-flavored Markdown [2] pages.
The very short version is that we borrowed many ideas from Divio’s documentation system [3], which recommend dividing your content into four distinct buckets: Tutorials, How-to Guides, Explanation, and Reference.
The layout and visual design were inspired by dozens of other docs sites we tested and studied, stealing the best ideas we could from everywhere we looked.
It’s also worth noting that the Cloudflare Workers docs have been open-sourced for over a year now [4], and these new docs (as well as the new engine which powers them) will continue to carry the same license. Contributions are welcome and we’re hopeful and excited to see further uses of the docs engine over time.
Fellow docs person here. Really like the new design—both in terms of information architecture and actually browsing the site! It looks like your docs engine is based on Gatsby. I'm looking into replacing our current static site generator, and Gatsby's near the top of the potential list.
I haven't dug into the repo yet, but building your own docs engine atop Gatsby seems like it would require a lot of additional config. Any major things you needed to address that Gatsby couldn't do out of the box? And when you say further use of the docs engine, are you open to other organizations using/tweaking it?
Gatsby is pretty powerful but also quite complicated and has a fair amount of issues to deal with.
For example it was pretty unergonomic to set up support for deploying to a `pathPrefix` [1] while retaining the ability to develop locally [2].
Nevertheless, we were able to make it work and have been relatively happy with Gatsby overall.
Absolutely! The docs are dual MIT and Apache licensed [3] so have at it. One note: we have not yet completely teased apart the so-called “engine” from our particularly implementation itself. This is something we’re planning to do, in part because we need to to support our other docs sites. You may find it easier to work with once we’ve done that. That being said, you can also just fork the repo, change the content and branding, and things should mostly “just work”. Of course if you run into issues along the way, we’d be glad to have contributions back to the project itself. Good luck!
