Does Search have a basic HTML mode too? Might be worth trying it if so.
Yes, and Firefox Mobile falls into it by default.
Readit Newsbrainwad commented on AOL to discontinue dial-up internet nytimes.com/2025/08/11/bu... · Posted by u/situationista
Deleted Comment
brainwad commented on Show HN: Online Ruler – Measuring in inches/centimeters anruler.com/... · Posted by u/artiomyak
“Taking whatever the OS tells them” is rather different!
It also gets multiplied by the browser’s zoom, which in both Firefox and Chrome include values like 80%, 90% and 110%.
So for me on HN at 120% on my 1.5× laptop display, devicePixelRatio is… 1.8181818181818181. Huh. Wonder why it’s not 1.8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1.8 probably would produce a non-integer number of CSS pixels. The browser needs (wants?) to pick a number that divides both the width and height without remainders. For 1920x1080, 1.8 doesn't (works for the height, but not the width) but 1.8̅1̅ does.
brainwad commented on Show HN: Online Ruler – Measuring in inches/centimeters anruler.com/... · Posted by u/artiomyak
> All major browsers round this to 0.5 or 0.25, which helps keep integer CSS px values an integer number of device pixels.
This is completely false. No browser that I know of does any such thing, nor would it make any sense to do so (nor would it achieve the goal you specify to any meaningful extent).
The closest thing that does happen is that browsers use integer fractions of pixels as their basic layout unit: Firefox and its kin sixtieths, Chrome and its kin sixty-fourths.
But the rest of your answer is correct; and to add a proper citation: “the reference pixel is the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a device pixel density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an arm’s length” <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#reference-pixel>.
Maybe it's better to say that browsers just take what the OS tells them, rather than actually deriving a device pixel ratio from first principles according to the CSS spec. Because, yeah, there's some weird devices with DPRs like 2.625, though _most_ are multiples of 0.25: https://yesviz.com/viewport/. But note how the same DPR can give a varying CSS PPI, which makes using it useless for this purpose.
brainwad commented on Show HN: Online Ruler – Measuring in inches/centimeters anruler.com/... · Posted by u/artiomyak
Is it not possible to use `window.devicePixelRatio` instead of calibration?
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/devi...
Not really. All major browsers just use the value the OS gives them, which is usually rounded to 0.5 or 0.25, which helps keep integer CSS px values an integer number of device pixels. So you could be off as much as 12% if you are on a device that rounded down from 1.12 to 1.0.
Also, even if they didn't, there's no standard for what the correct DPI should be for a device; it theoretically should depend on viewing distance, but it's impractical to constantly change the screen DPI depending on how far away the user's eyes are :)
OP could, however, use a better default than 96 DPI for mobile devices. Most are targeting ~160-ish.
brainwad commented on Show HN: Online Ruler – Measuring in inches/centimeters anruler.com/... · Posted by u/artiomyak
96dpi seems like a bad default for mobile devices. The CSS spec says the reference pixel (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-values-3/#reference-pixel) should be 96dpi at ~28" viewing distance. But handheld devices are presumed to not be seen that far away and so are built with a DPI closer to 160 (after dividing by the device pixel ratio).
brainwad commented on Brazil central bank to launch Pix installment feature in September reuters.com/technology/br... · Posted by u/CXSHNGCB
Pix costs are very low and the fee for the merchant as well. They pay less for it and get the money instantly. That’s why many small merchants only accept pix and some big merchants offer discounts for payments using it.
Discounts for Pix vs cash sound cool and a fine alternative to cashback via the payment system. Though I can imagine this might be hard in some countries, where there is a strong pro-cash lobby.
brainwad commented on Brazil central bank to launch Pix installment feature in September reuters.com/technology/br... · Posted by u/CXSHNGCB
I mean, the cashback is paid for out of the fees you pay for the service. In a world with low capped charges (EU etc) then you'll just pay less, which is equivalent to cashback and much fairer.
So long as the price is the same for cash and card (and Pix?), then you should pick the one that gives you the best kickbacks. I don't think capping CC fees will actually lower prices for consumers much (because merchants prefer round prices for psychological pricing). For evidence, see the fairly uniform pricing of products sold in euros between countries, despite varying vat rates between eurozone countries.
brainwad commented on Brazil central bank to launch Pix installment feature in September reuters.com/technology/br... · Posted by u/CXSHNGCB
> Switzerland has interchange fees of 0.4% for consumer credit cards
Only since Wednesday of this week due to COMCO action, so no-one knows if cashback will persist, but it will be a lot less than .33%.
> And let's not forget that cash acceptance costs an order of magnitude more than this anyway;
In the EU, it's .5% for cash vs .3% for cards, but the situation falls back into favour for cash once fraud is accounted for.
> Only since Wednesday of this week due to COMCO action
That Visa fee table is dated July 2023?
brainwad commented on Brazil central bank to launch Pix installment feature in September reuters.com/technology/br... · Posted by u/CXSHNGCB
It could give cashback if it cost 3% of the transaction. But it’s it’s actually much cheaper. For credit cards you have to pay for the brand, the issuer and the acquirer. And each gets a nice cut.
Reducing merchant fees seems like a mistake if you are in competition with both cash (which has high intrinsic merchant costs) and credit cards (which has low intrinsic costs, but which are padded so they're closer to the costs of cash, with consumer cashback coming out of this padding). I'm certainly not going to _choose_ to receive less cashback, as a consumer.