I'll be darned, I have that one sitting on my table right now. The rhythm of his writing is great, and the allusions to Greek myths are fun even if you don't know what they mean as a kid.
Graeme Base's illustrations are super good, especially the ones where he hides things that you have to go back and look for. And +1 for The Way Things Work.
If You Give a Mouse a Cookie - the original is by far the best of these.
Ramona Quimby series - Beverly Cleary
Iggy Peck, Architect (+series) - Andrea Beaty
Beast Feast - Emma Yarlett
Dragons Love Tacos (+ 2) - Adam Rubin
The Princess in Black (+series) - Shannon & Dean Hale
Don't Let a Unicorn Scribble (+series) - Diane Abler
The Camping Trip - Jennifer Maan
Maddie & Mabel (+series) - Kari Allen
I Love You Stinky Face - Lisa McCourt
Authors that were always good: Arnold Lobel, Sandra Boynton, James Stevenson
And don't forget to check https://www.betterworldbooks.com/ , they are affiliated with the Internet Archive and they don't show up in shopping searches.
I really wanted to like Iggy Peck, Ada Twist, and Rosie Revere, because they promote really positive messages. But man, the verse is really clumsy and poor in some areas. Not stellar writing.
To add to your list: anything by Julia Donaldson. The Gruffalo, Super Worm, Room on the Broom, the Whale and the Snail.
This kills accessibility. You wouldn't even be able to select text unless the page implemented that feature itself. Screen readers would have nothing to work with. No high-contrast mode, no translation, no changing the font size, no reader mode........
Unfortunately none of the things you listed are what page vendors want you to have. They'd very much prefer you didn't. On the web, they're just too hard to prevent, so most don't bother.
I think that must be false. Serving the page as a static image was possible from the early days of the web, but vendors (mostly!) moved away from that as features like web fonts became available. I guess Flash was the big remaining exception. And remember Java applets? But even now as rendering to a canvas is possible, enabling animation and interactivity without necessarily including accessibility, websites are mostly not doing that. Accessibility is good for business. And sometimes it's legally required.
Software accessibility is bad for business - that's why it has to be legally mandated. There's no firm difference between "accessible", particularly to screen readers, and "amenable to end-user automation", and the latter is anathema to businesses.
As for the styling and fonts - it's all a bunch of low-key trade-offs here. The businesses want to exercise total control over the end-user experience, for sales/marketing and branding reasons. At the same time, going off the beaten path quickly makes development costs skyrocket.
Flash was a good choice back when all visitors were using a PC and there were like 3 different screen resolutions to choose from. Once laptops gained popularity, this started to shift, then pre-iPhone mobile briefly became consideration, and Flash stopped being sufficient; then iPhone came out, killed Flash, and started an era where every visitor has a different screen than the previous one. "Responsible web" became the cheapest option, and you can see its evolution as a trajectory towards giving more and more control over experience to developers, and less and less to the users.
I'm fine with it being legally enforced. The point is, web site owners mostly wouldn't move to "a frame-buffer to draw on with something like a wasm vm".
Well, they did sue Cox Communications for a billion dollars because they weren't self-policing. ISPs can lose their safe harbor status and effectively become accomplices in all the piracy of their customers.
Not only downloading, but also uploading. Your ISP (in America) has a policy about how many DMCA strikes you get before they disable your internet permanently.
In New Hampshire, we banned both public and private ALPRs. You can see on the map that the only ones are at toll booths. Those got explicit exemptions in the law.
Isn't that the state with license plates that say "live free or die?" Unless, of course, you have a moral objection to that statement, cf. Wooley v. Maynard.
Do you see anyone claiming the opposite? The point is that they will not write the motto on your license plate if you object.
I get that HN attracts a certain amount of pedantry, but I can't figure out what exactly you're even trying to be pedantic about. There's not single comment here that could be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that "live free or die" isn't their motto
His pedantic point is that due to the way the original question was written, the answer is “yes” regardless if you object or not.
The question was “isn’t that the state with license plates that say ‘live free or die’?” And even if you get a license plate that doesn’t say it, NH is still the state with those plates
They're not that free about beer. Though, more free about beer than liquor. That's only allowed to be sold in state run liquor stores. It was a real head scratcher when I first encountered it.
Last week I called around to see if I could get a booster before schools open. I was told by several places that they had sent their Covid shots back and I should just wait until mid-September to see whether they get new ones.
reply