Some friendly but direct advice (as I've wanted a clear and up-front shrinkflation evidence website forever): if your goal is to get people to contribute examples, then those landing pages are failures.
The first link reads like it's basically nothing. No content. A single photo of ancient sardines with no caption or purpose. It's some backrooms internal Wiki page. "Possible uses" like you're not even sure what you're doing. Your first sentence makes no sense: "Log on Open Food Facts food products that are not sold anymore and were on sale there..." That's gibberish. "Where to find the products"? What products? What? What is this page?
I'm not trying to be rude, just give you a chance to hear how it reads to a user unfamiliar with what you're doing, looking at it whatever that is for the first time.
The second page is dominated by a donation banner, and it's already a hard sell to get someone to download an app. What I gather from the first graphic is that this is a carbon-neutral, EU effort to get me to eat bugs or soy paste. The graphic literally means I have to weigh my personal enjoyment with someone's conception of what's best for the planet at large (and historically that's meant things like "you will own nothing and you will be happy").
yeah, this looks like an internal project page. not something meant for the public. what i would do is to create a different page specifically for contributors that has instructions on how to add products, and ways to look at the lists of products. by name, by category, by year, etc. also a search field to look for specific products.
Here's a little script to download all the publicly available scans (135) as GLBs and stick the metadata in a JSON. The scans are all CC0 (public domain)
For someone that doesn’t know about this, how does a CDN help? Don’t they still have to pay for all the data downloaded even if it’s hosted on a CDN. I thought the whole purpose of a CDN was just to make access quicker and had nothing to do with saving on bandwidth costs.
Why do they care so much? They're a non-profit dedicated to the betterment of humanity via open access to AI. They have nothing to hide. They have no motivation to lie, or lie by omission.
A more interesting question to me (and one where MSFT employees here would have some insight) is to what degree is Windows' recent ABYSMAL fucking quality the result of AI, outsourcing, or bad management? You can also feel the difference in healthy employees vs. unhealthy, when you switch between something like VSCode (polished, fast, intelligent UI, not buggy, consistently improves) and Explorer (paleolithically slow, unstable, buggy, crashy, the worst version is always the latest).
> VSCode (polished, fast, ...) and Explorer (paleolithically slow,
In what world is VSCode fast when its startup time is multiples of Explorer (which had in recent news decided to preload itself to mask that issue) and they are the result of exactly the same fundamental shift from native to web native
VSCode starts up the same as any other IDE, and is responsive and snappy when using it. Explorer starts up about 100 times slower than any other file explorer, and is exceptionally while using it too.
Visual Studio is the one to compare to "any other heavy IDE", vs code is slow as a text editor due to chrome, not its ide features , and there are plenty of code editors with plugins that start much faster, though I won't make up 10000 times, it's only around 10
Now try to follow your own sources, both links for that sentence call it a code editor with MS doing the correct reverence " happy with using a regular code editor like Sublime Text instead of a full IDE like Visual Studio."!
It's also called so on its official page "The open source AI code editor"
So try to make an actual argument/use a proper source for one instead of treating wikis as the ultimate truth
> What IDE with plugins starts faster?
Sublime Text, which is as much an IDE as VSCode
> And I'm not talking about the startup time of VSCode.
You're, you are responding to a point about very slow startup time
>Now try to follow your own sources, both links for that sentence call it a code editor with MS doing the correct reverence " happy with using a regular code editor like Sublime Text instead of a full IDE like Visual Studio."
People call applications apps, and before that they called applications programs. VSCode is called an IDE. My link calls it an IDE. Some people call it a code editor. Some people call emacs and vim IDEs. VSCode does everything an IDE does, including compiling, debugging, and profiling.
>So try to make an actual argument/use a proper source for one instead of treating wikis as the ultimate truth
Just because you don't like it being called an IDE doesn't mean it isn't an actual argument.
Regardless, you haven't and can't attack my central point. The only one I care about, in fact: that the user can feel the vast difference in quality of VSCode vs. Explorer, and can tell that it's made competently vs. incompetently.
I also said nothing about how long it takes to start up--you brought that up. I called it "polished, fast, intelligent UI, not buggy, [and it] consistently improves," all of which are true. All of which you've ignored.
>You're, you are responding to a point about very slow startup time
I'm responding to someone who doesn't understand my argument, and probably doesn't want to.
> People call applications apps, and before that they called applications programs
Those are synonyms, how is it relevant?
> My link calls it an IDE.
Mistakenly because the sources it uses to support that do not call it an IDE
> Just because you don't like it being called an IDE doesn't mean it isn't an actual argument.
The reason isn't likes, but lack of substance. Like when you provide an empty reference to wiki without even reading it yourself to see that the sources don't support the statement
> Regardless, you haven't and can't attack my central point.
I have, your comparison is false, the "paleo slow" app is faster than the "fast" one. Now you claim that "fast" somehow doesn't include the speed of startup!
> All of which you've ignored.
Some of which, and given that you can't see the obvious about objective things like speed, and the common like the difference between an IDE and a code editor, there is no point in addressing more vague points like UI polish.
But also, why do you have the misconception that I should somehow address everything in you list???
Pff, now Microsoft Word probably sends your document to an AI every second and asks it to send back a PNG that highlights every misspelled word, and it overlays that underneath your text.
reply