What percent of your driving is on highways vs urban? Almost all car brands today have incredible ADAS systems for highway driving. When Consumer Reports compared ADAS systems in 2023 Tesla was ranked 8th
That's kinda cool but the article addresses a major concern with this strategy that is not addressed here. Which is that many of these tags (e.g. <special>, <keyword>, etc) might someday become part of the HTML standard.
The article states that anything with a dash is guaranteed not to be and another commenter here shared their strategy that involved a naming convention like <x-special>, <x-symb>, etc. Perhaps substituting x for j would make sense and alleviate the concern of possible future clashes with web standards
This might be true but I would hope the web standard is defined enough that browsers can also fail in the same way. Regardless of which browser is the most "correct" here
"correct" in fail, in the same way across browsers? that's hilarious. I forget that throughout the history of the internet the one thing we've been able to depend on is different browsers behaving the same way
Experimental is just the unreleased versions of the browsers. Like a beta or alpha for the next release. So ofc they're usually gonna be ahead.
Every year the major browsers get together and agree on a set of "focus areas" that are paint points for browser interoperability. They've been doing it since 2021. I posted the 2025 results. All browsers reached about 99% support for the selected features
While not disputing in any way the truth of what you're saying: I'm a product manager who leans toward Safari, while the devs I work with use Chrome almost exclusively, and we have an unwritten agreement that when it comes to display/layout issues, I'll double check in Chrome before filing the bug. It's only been Safari-exclusive a handful of times, but that's enough that it's annoying for everyone when it's just me.
I guess the question here has to be: is this actually a bug in Safari? Or is it a bug in Chrome, that people (whether that's your people or third parties) have just been working around in a way that doesn't work in Safari?
And this is a big part of the problem with having Chrome become such a dominant force on the web: people assume that it's correct when Safari displays something differently. And people give instructions and documentation for how to do various things "in HTML/CSS/JS" when they've never tested them in anything other than Chrome, so if Chrome's behavior deviates from the spec there, someone implementing those instructions on Safari will see them fail, and assume incorrectly that it's Safari that's wrong.
Note that I am not saying this is what is happening in any specific case—but because Chrome is so dominant, enough people treat it as the de-facto standard that over time, it becomes a near-inevitability that this will happen in some cases.
I've run into Safari exclusive issues before as well around color transparency, but tbh I'm surprised it comes up that often. Modern IDEs support linters that warn you whenever you are using a CSS feature that isn't supported by all modern browsers. You can even set the year you wanna support (e.g. all major browser versions since 2023). Between that awesome tooling and rapidly improving browser support for web standards, these kinds of issues feel extremely rare.
Except for printing. Printing has and seemingly always will f'n suck. Unfortunately WPT doesn't have a good way of testing for print-related features
If I’m not mistaken, they only select a couple of features to work on every year—the ones they already agree on to begin with—and the high interoperability shown in the link only concerns those few select features.
For example, JPEG XL has been proposed for Interop a few times before, but never selected. Therefore, Safari remains the only major browser to support it so far.
And yes JPEG XL support is often the most requested feature and the major browsers have responded. Google and Firefox are both willing to take it on but Firefox's biggest concern is with the reference decoder which has some major security flaws. They basically want to wait until libjxl/jxl-rs is performant enough
It took Mozilla two years to decide they were 'neutral', citing a range of vague considerations. It took them another year to say that actually their 'primary concern has long been the increased attack surface of the reference decoder', without pointing out any specific major security flaws, and that they're okay with an implementation in Rust… which had already been proposed by the JXL team many months ago. And let's not even talk about Chrome.
Hopefully they've both finally settled on a reasoning and will stick with it until the end.
Yeah I guess I wasn't following that closely but I know their previous position was that there wasn't enough benefits to .jxl to justify supporting another raster image standard.
There's been a lot of major changes since then though. Like Apple fully adopting JPEG XL and PDF announcing support as well.
I know many in the industry also think that AV2 might be a huge game changer and wanna wait and see how that ends up before choosing what standards to adopt.
Scientists that study mosquitoes in a lab will commonly feed the mosquitoes with their own blood. Literally sticking their arm in and letting them feed.
You appear to lack the historical knowledge to appreciate the joke:
The war on drugs was specifically designed to allow the government to go after the left and black people. Nixon's domestic policy chief said this in 1994:
Buddy relax. It's a joke about the way the drug war has historically developed. You might get more out of it if you read some history about marijuana in the US
Sorry, do you think anyone isn’t aware of this factoid? Why do you think your comment is immune to criticism just because it references a historical event?
Spinach too is mildly toxic because of its oxalate content yet we eat it all the time. Some of those toxic saponins even have certain health benefits. There are plenty other examples of toxic foods we regularly consume: legumes contain deadly saponins, beets contain oxalates, and potatoes contain glycoalkaloids
From what I read Suillellus luridus (见手青) is completely fine when cooked
https://www.consumerreports.org/-a2103632203/
If almost all of your driving is on highways then you could probably rely on ADAS for 99% of your driving with almost any other car brand as well
reply