Node JS Logos
-
@abarker Fixed. ;-)
-
@anonymous234 said in Node JS Logos:
@cvi Technically electrons look more like
But then that would be OrbitalJS
-
I got 5/105. Did they calculate my score using Javascript? I think I only answered 5 questions. This is the height of JS hipster bullshit.
-
@Zecc said in Node JS Logos:
Got lucky the second time around, but I've got better stuff to do.
Hmm...
-
@Zecc said in Node JS Logos:
Holy crap, it's even on the
alt
attribute.At least they didn't add a
title
attribute, or it would come up on hover.Just use an old version of MSIE.
-
-
-
@boomzilla said in Node JS Logos:
@Zecc said in Node JS Logos:
Got lucky the second time around, but I've got better stuff to do.
Hmm...
$ cat /dev/null/ cat: /dev/null/: Not a directory
-
@Jarry IRTA "Yawn"
-
I hereby award @ben_lubar the for this thread.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Node JS Logos:
@anonymous234 said in Node JS Logos:
maybe you don't really need a memorable logo and catchy name for every single development tool.
Right! A name that explains what the fuck this thing is for is a lot better than a name that is catchy but has no relation to the product. More "WordPerfect" and less "Grunt".
Grunt makes more sense than most. It's a task runner; it does your grunt work.
-
@error said in Node JS Logos:
Grunt makes more sense than most. It's a task runner; it does your grunt work.
If it is a task runner, why not put “task runner” in the name? Yes, it makes it less sexy, but a task runner isn't supposed to be anything other than boringly reliable and easy to use.
Cute names can DIAF.
-
@dkf NPM doesn't have a package called DIAF. But it does have a package with FOAD in the name instead.
And it's amazeballs.
-
-
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
@aliceif said in Node JS Logos:
@accalia said in Node JS Logos:
It doesn't need flash, though.
onebox says differently.
and regardless. Flash will remain dead to me. not even my bank could get me to enable it.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@aliceif said in Node JS Logos:
@accalia said in Node JS Logos:
@aliceif said in Node JS Logos:
@accalia said in Node JS Logos:
It doesn't need flash, though.
onebox says differently.
and regardless. Flash will remain dead to me. not even my bank could get me to enable it.
I guess Chrome is just broken.
seems to work just fine to me. it stopped me from accidentally running Flash and thus i avoided a major web infection vector.
if anything is broken it is the onebox that fails with flash disabled.
-
This post is deleted!
-
-
@aliceif Hypothesis: the server is sending different content OR (most likely) the local javascript is generating different code depending on whether you have Flash installed.
So if you have Flash installed but disabled, you don't get the HTML version, whereas if you don't have Flash at all you do.
Or even worse, the server is assuming Chrome always has Flash available.
-
@accalia said in Node JS Logos:
@aliceif said in Node JS Logos:
Weird, isn't it?
Yep. Firefox is doing some weird shit.
Oi! i didn't deserve that downvote! i didn't downvote you for using a broken browser!
@anonymous234 said in Node JS Logos:
@aliceif Hypothesis: the server is sending different content OR (most likely) the local javascript is generating different code depending on whether you have Flash installed.
So if you have Flash installed but disabled, you don't get the HTML version, whereas if you don't have Flash at all you do.
Or even worse, the server is assuming Chrome always has Flash available.
actually, given that the entire contents of @dreikin's markdumb is:
@Onyx said in [Node JS Logos](/post/1033664): > Lord Sagan http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/hailsagan
which produced the following HTML (helpfully captured by wireshark to prevent JS fiddlign with it:
<div class="content" component="post/content" itemprop="text"> <p><a class="plugin-mentions-a" href="https://what.thedailywtf.com/uid/572">@Onyx</a> said in <a href="/post/1033664">Node JS Logos</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Lord Sagan</p> </blockquote> <div class="iframely-link"> <div> <a href="http://www.pledgemusic.com/projects/hailsagan" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> <img src="http://d1nvfozp665ptr.cloudfront.net/pipeline/favicon-938f880ec365fa5104b1950669f60251.ico" class="thumb pull-left not-responsive" /> Hail Sagan: Hail Sagan EP </a> </div> <div class="iframely-container"> <div style="left: 0px; width: 100%; height: 0px; position: relative; padding-bottom: 75.0019%;"><embed src="https://www.pledgemusic.com/pipeline/player.swf?autostart=false&controlbar=none&file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pledgemusic.com%2Fprojects%2Fhailsagan%2Fvideo.mp4%3Futm_campaign%3Dproject14487%26utm_medium%3Dplayer%26utm_source%3Dfacebook&image=https%3A%2F%2Fd2tqed3y8k290k.cloudfront.net%2Fartists%2F000%2F232%2F421%2Fheros%2Fdesktop.jpg%3F1476480439&logo.file=https%3A%2F%2Fd1nvfozp665ptr.cloudfront.net%2Fpipeline%2Fplayer%2Fview_project-3fec4ee1b1fd043da48d813ad649a2d1.png&logo.hide=false&logo.link=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pledgemusic.com%2Fprojects%2Fhailsagan%3Futm_campaign%3Dproject14487%26utm_medium%3Dplayer%26utm_source%3Dfacebook&logo.position=top-right" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></div> </div> </div> </div>
I'm going with Chrome did exactly the right thing. the entire contents of the "iframe" is a shockwave flash embed object. If Firefox displayed something there it's because it actually ran flash.
I welcome someone who has Firefox to prove me wrong, but until; then i stand by my original statement that Firefox was doing some weird shit.
Edit: adding in the forgotten scarequotes around "iframe" because of course iframely doesn't use those and just farts arbitrary HTML directly into your page.
-
Oh freaking ....
There's two posts with random animated BS in them. I must have confused them with each other or nodeBB didn't show one of them. Sorry!
-
Firefox kept listing the plugin as outdated even though the "Plugin Check" page listed it as "up to date". Well, maybe that'll change when Firefox updates to whatever version it's on now (was 48.0.1 when I took the screenshot).
-
@accalia said in Node JS Logos:
Eh? But I don't—
Oh. "Plugins" aren't included with "Extensions", and are instead hidden several layers deep. Thanks Chrome.
As to why I have it in the first place, either Adobe snuck it in there from installing a different application (I doubt it) or I've just had this computer so long it seemed necessary/useful at the time (probable). Not getting installed on the new laptop, though.
Edit: For those wondering:
[tab] Settings/ [action] Show advanced settings… [section] Privacy/ [button] Content settings…/ [section] Plugins/ [action] Manage individual plugins/ [final destination] chrome://plugins
-
@Dreikin said in Node JS Logos:
[tab] Settings/ <del>[action] Show advanced settings…</del> <del>[section] Privacy/</del> <ins>Type "plugins"</ins> [button] Content settings…/ [section] Plugins/ [action] Manage individual plugins/ [final destination] chrome://plugins
-
-
-
@Dreikin if you're doing that, shirley you'd just type in
chrome://plugins
directly in the first place?
-
@Jaloopa said in Node JS Logos:
@Dreikin said in Node JS Logos:
[tab] Settings/ <del>[action] Show advanced settings…</del> <del>[section] Privacy/</del> <ins>Type "plugins"</ins> [button] Content settings…/ [section] Plugins/ [action] Manage individual plugins/ [final destination] chrome://plugins
In practice, I just typed flash and otherwise followed what you have there. I was just pointing out how hidden it is if you don't use search. (yeah, I know, this is Google: not using search is )
-
@Arantor said in Node JS Logos:
@Dreikin if you're doing that, shirley you'd just type in
chrome://plugins
directly in the first place?Have to know about that in the first place. Knowing about it, and not being too lazy to type at the time, yes, I'd do that. (And yes, I know it's right there in @accalia's screenshot. This is from the PoV of someone just wondering what they have installed and looking around.)