Also, Longbridge, who seem to be using this GPUI component library for their Longbridge Pro [1] app, look to me like a regular online brokerage company. What is your issue with that?
I recently experimented with using pglite for API integration tests in one of my side projects. It worked pretty well and has much better DX than using something like testcontainers[0] to spin up postgres running in docker.
I can totally understand the quoted comment. I mean, we are talking about CSS as a language here. Anything that is formalized is expected to be implemented and supported by browser engines and vendors. Browser engines are already extremely complex, so it's fair to think closely about formalizing new things when it's not apparent that there is a big enough need.
I'm not claiming this is the case with the Mansory layout; I just understand that adding unnecessary complexity for a small target user base is a valid concern.
That's not fair. Sure, if there's an experienced dev who _values_ efficiency on the team, who pushes for the site to be more efficient or builds it more efficiently to begin with, the page would be better off. But it's mostly about incentives. If management doesn't care, they will likely not react well to programmers spending time making the site more efficient instead of spending half the time to just get it running and then crunching through their backlog.
Now I got you. I guess "keep children safe" here means two things.
1. Protecting them from grooming
2. Stopping CSAM from being spread via Facebook Messanger
It's evident that E2E encryption likely doesn't make much of a difference regarding the second point, given that many messengers have already implemented E2E encryption.
So, assuming the communication of the NCA was perfectly sincere, the loss here would be mostly the inability to prevent grooming properly. In this case, I think the question we should be asking ourselves is whether children need to be on these platforms at all. We're seeing so many issues linked to the phone use of children that regardless of protecting them from sexual abuse and exploitation, they should probably just be using phones less.
You're right; I didn't offer a solution. The point of my comment was how one-sided and predictable the framing around these measures has become. As you can see by some of the other comments, I seem to not be the only one thinking that.
Let me ask you the apparent counter question: do you not see the value of private communication? If you use Facebook Messenger personally, don't you feel that you have gained something by your messages being encrypted? If not, is your reply simply "I ain't got anything to hide"?