That’s the most legible font for people with impaired vision, which is a completely different concept
I'm replying to the comment saying "you need glasses" to say that the best font for people that need glasses is free.
Readit Newsjjmarr commented on A brief history of Times New Roman typographyforlawyers.com/... · Posted by u/tosh
jjmarr commented on A brief history of Times New Roman typographyforlawyers.com/... · Posted by u/tosh
If you think that all fonts are equally legible, then I can confidently say that you need glasses.
The most legible font is Atkinson Hyperlegible, which is free and developed by the Braille institute.
https://www.brailleinstitute.org/freefont/
I never see people using it because it's a weird hybrid between serif and sans serif, breaking many traditional design rules.
jjmarr commented on Internal RFCs saved us months of wasted work highimpactengineering.sub... · Posted by u/romannikolaev
Folks with big titles will always write comments that sound smart and thoughtful but in reality hinder the process. For example:
- This architecture binds us to AWS. Have we estimated the engineering effort to remain cloud-agnostic in case we need to move to Azure next year?
- I see we're using Postgres. Have we considered how we’ll handle horizontal sharding if our user base grows by 1000x in Q4?
- This synchronous API call introduces tight coupling. Shouldn't this be an event-driven architecture to handle back-pressure?
All sound like things that are easy to ask, sound prudent to management, but are impossibly expensive to answer or implement for a feature that just needs to ship.
The folks with big titles need to determine if the company's technical strategy is cloud-agnostic and whether 1000x growth in Q4 is a legitimate concern.
If Big Title wants to own the schedule impact they can make these demands.
Maybe I'm not read into the secret deal with Microsoft for next quarter that'll require all 3 of these.
jjmarr commented on Full Unicode Search at 50× ICU Speed with AVX‑512 ashvardanian.com/posts/se... · Posted by u/ashvardanian
Very cool and impressive performance.
I was worried (I find it confusing when Unicode "shadows" of normal letters exist, and those are of course also dangerous in some cases when they can be mis-interpreted for the letter they look more or less exactly like) by the article's use of U+212A (Kelvin symbol) as sample text, so I had to look it up [1].
Anyway, according to Wikipedia the dedicated symbol should not be used:
However, this is a compatibility character provided for compatibility with legacy encodings. The Unicode standard recommends using U+004B K LATIN CAPITAL LETTER K instead; that is, a normal capital K.
That was comforting, to me. :)
> I find it confusing when Unicode "shadows" of normal letters exist, and those are of course also dangerous in some cases when they can be mis-interpreted for the letter they look more or less exactly like
Isn't this why Unicode normalization exists? This would let you compare Unicode letters and determine if they are canonically equivalent.
Since it's so germane, I'll share my little widget that compares EU countries to US states on various metrics: https://evmar.github.io/states/
Does Czechia really have 4 million square miles and NaN population?
jjmarr commented on How well do you know C++ auto type deduction? volatileint.dev/posts/aut... · Posted by u/volatileint
I'd suppose this really depends on how you are developing your codebase but most code should probably be using a trailing return type or using an auto (or template) return type with a concept/requires constraint on the return type.
For any seriously templated or metaprogrammed code nowadays a concept/requires is going to make it a lot more obvious what your code is actually doing and give you actually useful errors in the event someone is misusing your code.
I don't understand why anyone would use auto and a trailing return type for their functions. The syntax is annoying and breaks too much precedent.
Deleted Comment
jjmarr commented on A giant ball will help this man survive a year on an iceberg outsideonline.com/outdoor... · Posted by u/areoform
I'm pretty sure the issue was with 'move fast and break things' and not using carbon fiber.
I think it was on the youtubes I was watching a story about how they built that thing and it was <spoiler alert> not really fit for purpose. I mean, no big surprise in hindsight.
Carbon fibre has poor compressive strength and good tensile strength.
That makes it inherently bad at holding pressure from outside in a submarine and good at holding pressure inside a spaceship or airplane.
jjmarr commented on Capsudo: Rethinking sudo with object capabilities ariadne.space/2025/12/12/... · Posted by u/fanf2
The problem is how do you set up those permissions without a god object? How do you fix ones that are broken on a running system?
Ultimately the security systems that introduce high complexity in the name of fine grain permission controls end up being the most fragile and hardest to verify. People get stuff wrong then break it further trying to get their job done. The better system is sometimes the one that doesn’t have all of the features but is comprehensible to humans.
Selinux and AppArmor?
Android has it figured out too.
Something that occured to me years ago is we have a quirk in English language that gets in the way of accurately emapthizing with each other, especially when trying to design things well (like products and experiences). We don't say "unwant", and we don't clearly differentiate between a lack of want and a repulsion or unwant or negative want.
Someone might say "I don't want x" or "I don't need x" and it's unclear if:
- they see no value in x
- they see small enough value in x that they don't care
- they see negative value
So much time and energy is wasted on misunderstandings that stem from this ambiguity.
It ruins products, is loses deals, it screws up projections, it confuses executives, etc.
It gets in the way of accurately empathizing with and understanding each other.
Because "I unwant x" means something extremely different than "I don't want x". Unwant implies some other value that x is getting in the way of. Understanding other peoples' values is what enables accurate empathy for them. Accurately empathizing with customers is what enables great products and predictable sales.
"I don't care about x" clearly indicates a lack of want but is considered ruder than "I don't want x".