The text plugin alone seems like it could be a whole standalone product. Offline first seems to be getting more and more interest. Pretty cool. Dropbox + git for non-tech users. I dig that idea.
I have a Hugo blog and I wish the experience for writing on my phone was better. I need a git client and a markdown editor to publish. Not streamlined, but it’s free.
I agree that it would make sense for substack to provide a good way to write from your phone.
NoScript and uBlock Origin are what I use. My two must-have extensions for any browser I regularly use.
With NoScript, I started off with everything blocked, and just stuck the extension icon into the toolbar. Whenever a site wouldn't load properly, I'd temporarily enable the JS just for that single domain, and see if that got it to work. If it didn't, I would usually poke about and see what other domains need to be unblocked. It's pretty common that you might need to unblock some CDN or a 'static' subdomain to get the site to load. If it's a website I expect to come back to, I will then switch those exemptions to permanent, but otherwise I try to avoid leaving a lot of cruft in the whitelist.
Sites include the page origin, and any other sites and domains from which requests are made. Many common advertising and tracking domains are blacklisted by default.
Rules may be written specific to a site or as default rules.
Animated webp is commonly supported at least on he web these days.
Of course, it too is a horrible video format, which is impressive considering it is based on a not nearly as horrible video format. If only browsers would support silent looping video in <img> and CSS image contexts...
> Animated webp is commonly supported at least on he web these days.
Sure-- if it's a) a website that b) you're making. Tons of websites that allow user uploads only allow common static image formats-- jpg, gif... maybe png, maybe bmp, etc. I can't imagine anywhere that allows users to upload profile pictures, for example, would allow them to upload a webp, but I could imagine users wanting an animated profile picture. I've done it myself.
The whole point is that there are instances where using an animated gif is the only option if you want an animated image, and people want to convert videos to animated gif because of that. That's why FFmpeg does it. I'm not really sure why people find this so weird.
There are still plenty of contexts where you can embed images but not videos (or at least not with automatic looping playback) - forums, github README.md, other markdown-based comment/post systems.
Gif compression limitations also encourage you to cut down to the essential parts - too many videos waste the viewers time with delays and irrelevant bits.
