It does before user scroll down the page a little. That's what he called dynamic viewport being added to spec. It was to address issue of incorrect viewport height (100vh) when the toolbar is visible. So units such as svh, lvh, and dvh are added.
Having controls at the bottom isn't user hostile, it's the fact that it obstructs the space allotted for developers. This makes it much harder to develop mobile sites - in my experience a very large minority of sites fuck it up, and it makes the mobile browser feel like a worse experience.
Like, you drag a window over your browser, and the viewport values change? I'd not have expected that, and I don't think I've ever noticed that behavior. How does it account for all of those sorts of things (browser-provided login prompts, or browser settings windows, or certificate-info pop-downs, or non-browser windows being dragged on top of part of the browser window) not necessarily resulting in a viewable area describable as a rectangle?
Sorry I should have been more specific. The viewport is merely the window of the browser itself where the website is rendered. The calculations given to devs reflects that area, and it does change if the user resizes their browser. But it doesn’t change if something is displayed on top.
It’s true that some temporary browser elements will display on top of the viewport, but these are things like alerts where it makes sense.
To have a permanent fixture that takes up space and then have the viewport lie to devs about the actual dimensions is really frustrating.
It's just... vexing to have "viewport" units in the spec, but then the user agents are just drawing stuff on top of the "viewport" but not changing its reported size, so now we need additional "real viewport size" units...
I think this might be an extreme case of misunderstanding how internet communities work.
Without comments, HN would be just a boring link aggregator and we'd get very little information if the article was BS or not. But because we have comments we get gems at times where 'the creator of X' discusses the merits of the article. That can be nearly priceless. Things like this draw people that don't upvote and don't comment, but they still get immense value from it.
Posts are what makes Reddit, so much so that Reddit created hundreds of fraudulent profiles in their early days to fake popularity.
Of course this interests me what the future looks like for social media. At one time in the past you needed users to generate and post content. Could we end up with social media sites with 'good enough' bots faking humans that draw in the masses, but few biological commenters and posters would exist?
