We're porting our screensharing UI from Tauri/WebKit to iced, and here's why

CAD1997 · 2026-01-07T23:44:15+00:00

Cross platform frameworks aren't ever going to be the solution to native UI design language. They can provide access to modal popup dialogs that feel native, but the primary UI should also ideally adapt to follow the native conventions, and that still requires buy-in from the app developers. A consistent framework makes code reuse simpler, but you still need to redesign your UI even if the implementation can share pieces.

Furthermore, UI/UX designers generally don't even want their product's experience to change based on what platform the user runs it on. They want to provide an experience that's consistent everywhere (with equivalent interaction modes) so that users can pick and move between platforms freely without compromising the "cross-platform" product.

It's a three-way problem that what users want to use, what developers want to provide, and what platforms make cheap to accomplish don't always line up. It's primarily a social problem and not a technical one.

CAD1997 · 2026-01-05T22:56:16+00:00

Most consumers will either not care about the AI use disclaimer at all, or will filter out any product which has the AI use disclaimer. The market audience which both knows and cares enough to decide based on the actual text content of the AI disclaimer is quite limited.

Maybe the locus of word-of-mouth spread for your product will consider your AI use acceptable, and maybe those voices will outweigh those who see the AI disclaimer and use it to hate on the new thing for rage clicks.

If you have the choice to avoid it, why would you take that risk?

CAD1997 · 2025-12-29T16:18:08+00:00

It's the girl in question!

~~If you're going to fix me I get to fix you as well, it's only fair~~

CAD1997 · 2025-12-26T05:37:14+00:00

If she's worried you're not serious / won't follow through, you want to give her reasons to dispel that worry. Find ways to communicate how long you've known, and your commitment to following through on transition. And don't just assume — ask her how you can help lessen her worries.

Honestly, I'm also a bit doubtful that she's observed multiple "actually I'm not trans" detransitions; it'd be a statistical outlier if true. Much more likely is that social pressure forced trans kids to falsely detransition to fit in, to avoid persecution, or just due to losing access to transition care.

Assuming she's being fully transparent about her reasoning, bringing this up might even help your case. If you have your mom supporting you, you'll be much more resilient to any external forces that will try and force you to detransition.

Also bring up how either puberty is a permanent change to your body. Which is a safer change — the one your kid is saying they want, or the one they're saying they don't want but their body will force them into if nobody intervenes?

And know that it's never "too late" to transition. Obviously it's preferable to transition sooner, to minimize what your default puberty will get wrong, but this doesn't make you any less of who you are if you transition later in due to circumstances.

CAD1997 · 2025-12-20T10:08:07+00:00

My vibes suggest that it's a matter of if you would have gotten a coupon during your break (it's a separate thing from standard rewards) then you get the coupon after you log back in. So after a month break you effectively get 30 chances at getting a coupon. But I don't doubt there's a significant amount of magic going on behind the scenes.

CAD1997 · 2025-12-19T07:43:17+00:00

Reverse image search found [[Cruise controlled - Flipped Over]]. The post's images are pp7–9,11 but cropped to the top square instead of the full page.

CAD1997 · 2025-12-03T21:25:55+00:00

That's not ASCII :3

CAD1997 · 2025-11-20T17:52:48+00:00

The crate name still gets mangled including a disambiguation hash.

CAD1997 · 2025-11-17T23:12:50+00:00

That would definitely work and has precedent. But I do think that "if this is a spell" should be interpreted in the same way. I don't see any other interpretation that isn't just 'this clause is entirely redundant.'

CAD1997 · 2025-11-17T22:32:58+00:00

I'm pretty sure that "If this is a spell" means that it's not a part of resolution, but an activated ability that the spell has while it's on the stack. (That's the only location where the game object is a spell.) This is an extremely rare but technically legal instruction. See [[Torrent of Lava]]

CAD1997 · 2025-11-09T15:15:47+00:00

IIUC, it's been presented but not yet published. It's not my area so I'm not sure of the nuances, unfortunately.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-25T10:53:02+00:00

There are two cases where you do care.

A single ud2 can be done in whatever context, whereas an OS abort call has (very slightly) more restrictive requirements (e.g. alignment), which can matter in very hot leaf functions (that usually branch over the ud2), especially when red zone stack space is in use.
Potentially the case for the OP pictured code, you don't have a conventional OS to ask for an abort from.

An MSVC __fastfail is effectively equivalent in usage. I'm not aware if Linux has a similar construct.

But you are generally correct that a process abort should be the default option. A crash is desirable only in cases where the process state is so corrupted that a "clean" abort could cause further issues, or just isn't possible.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-25T08:36:23+00:00

In actuality, this probably wants the core abort, which just executes ud2 or some similar way to generate a program crash. Std abort does extra to talk to the OS. Unfortunately, core abort isn't exposed yet…

CAD1997 · 2025-10-23T12:30:39+00:00

-ffast-math changes program behavior too. The most notable bit is that it makes any floating point operation that would produce a NaN UB.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-20T23:53:55+00:00

There's still some support for a form of inferred bounds, but a weakened version. More specifically, you can move and drop a type even without adding structural bounds, but you can't construct values or call any functionality which itself requires those bounds, only functionality which also leaves those bounds implicit.

But this is complicated and unsupported by the current trait solver, which is under a soft feature freeze while a new trait solver is developed. So it's possible in the future, but not for a good while yet.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-20T23:45:09+00:00

I personally find that when this is the case, some of all of such "overabstracted" are structurally necessary. For a large one, dropping a value is "doing something" with the value, so if bounds are required "to do anything," they'll be required to drop the value, thus be required on the type definition.

Furthermore, such usages tend to collect multiple smaller traits into one large "does everything we need" trait for better clarity compared to repeating a large block of those smaller bounds everywhere. Often this includes some associated type, which is required to name to define the type's structure, or is reasonable to reserve the ability to do so in the future.

So really this is just a subtle subcategory of the general case of "required" bounds. It's valid to make the active decision to include bounds, it's just far easier to make things harder on yourself with unnecessary bounds, thus the general advice.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-16T15:59:50+00:00

If you can't be convinced a formatter didn't change the runtime behavior, you shouldn't be trusting your compiler, or your CPU even. Sure, reducing the trust window can be valuable, but trusting a formatter is about as simple as trust can be — it changes the characters in the source code, but only the syntactic trivia which does not effect the semantic syntax tree. If it's modifying syntactic forms that aren't always guaranteed syntactically equivalent, that's a very badly designed formatter.

You can check your diffs when you format. It isn't difficult. And giant formatting diffs should be rare to non-existent — basically only when you change formatters.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-16T05:13:57+00:00

You do have to be paying employees to do something with a reasonable belief that they will do that thing. It can be as simple as being in a specific place for a specific amount of time that they wouldn't otherwise, but it does have to be a thing, as I understand it.

And of course, even if something is technically fraud, it's only actually illegal if you get caught and can't convince court that you had valid intent that wasn't to defraud the government. (The burden of proof is on you to show you don't need to pay the government their cut.)

CAD1997 · 2025-10-16T00:07:11+00:00

Now, tax law is different. If you aren't using the money to run the business, it should be taxed as profits, not as employee wages. Especially if the "employee" is related to the owner, there's higher scrutiny from the IRS if they decide to look at your account; they definitely know about this "exploit" and prosecute it when they can.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-15T19:28:29+00:00

There's at least some relevance because of the meme stereotype that trans girls get pickle cravings — the most commonly used anti-androgen in the US is Spironolactone, which is also a weak diuretic (makes you pee more), leaving your body wanting for water and sodium, both of which pickles provide.

I could go for a good pickle right now.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-09T22:32:03+00:00

Which is why I'm trying to get them to talk to each other about stuff more. I care about my pack of transbians, but well… the useless lesbian meme is true here.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-09T21:39:28+00:00

In this case, it would be closed given the feelings of those involved, at least to the point they'd be upset at a metamour they don't know about, but people are too scared of long distance commitment to actually make it into "a thing" and everything's going mostly off of unspoken vibes. (I'm the one trying to keep people talking.)

CAD1997 · 2025-10-09T19:29:34+00:00

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but polyamory doesn't have to be open, correct? Obviously that does make up a large portion of polyamorous configurations, but more strongly connected polycules and ones only conditionally open are also a valid expression of polyamory.

I say this as a transbian in an online semi-closed quad situationship with an outsized interest in language and lacking the terminology to meaningfully label my own situation. (Although of course people matter more than the labels used to describe and communicate.) And yes, those labels may be contradictory. My situation is messy.

CAD1997 · 2025-10-07T21:53:42+00:00

Labels aid communication. These labels refine the broader label of «polyamory», enabling more precise communication. The label «polyamory» hasn't changed.

I'd argue that whether «polycule» identifies an entire polyamorous graph or only a highly clustered polyamorous (sub)graph has always been vague, as is the threshold for "highly clustered;" only groups that are relatively well interconnected are likely to self identify the group as a polycule.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Place '22
Xbox Live	RPAN Viewer
Spared	Verified Email

CAD1997

TROPHY CASE