One method is a "hidden sms" which your device sends after you called the emergency number on your own merit.

The article seems to describe another system which can be involved externally.

But it seems this article is arguing is that there is another (non SMS based) way of accessing the precise location data which is not so difficult to access.

I've used email as MQ since forever also, and can highly recommend this pattern.

"We are lucky they're so stupid"

Soon you'll be seen as irresponsible and wasteful if you don't let the smarter LLM do it.

In these times, even running your own software on a provisioned VM is considered self-hosting sometimes.

I use outline buttons for "link" buttons and colored-in ones for those that perform actions.

When we first shopped around for a data center location, RFID access cards were kind of a new thing. Like the article, we erroneously pronounced it RDIF when asking about which technology their door systems used. I'm still thinking about it occasionally.

Fun side-fact: The original MacPaint, while in development, had an "ocr" copy feature, albeit much simpler of course.

It didn't make it in the release version out of fear that people would use MacPaint as a Word Processor.

Why spend electricity and time to read the text in a screenshot, and then more time making sure there are no mistakes. When the sender could have just copied the original text?

Why is the <div> option proposed by anyone in the first place?

Based on what I see in the world, I suspect one reason is that a <div> makes it easier to apply some bizarro appearance to the button, so it not only doesn’t act like a button, it doesn’t even look like a button.

This comes from either business or the UX people who want stuff to look pixel perfect to their stupid wireframe.

Why does a website that sells to a pretty much captive audience who cares more about functionality than looks obsess so much about every single button looking pixel perfect to some arbitrary wireframe, I will never know.

Things looking intentionally designed in great detail is also a function, despite programmer protests.

Well, have you been on, I don't know, TV Tropes? They have those long lists, that are separated into "folders" on a single page. You can click on those "folders" to expand/collapse them, and it's implemented as a <div> with "onclick" property and <ul> inside it (well, used to IIRC; nowadays this <ul> is a child of a sibling <div>).

> You can click on those "folders" to expand/collapse them, and it's implemented as a <div> with

... Isn't that what <details> and <summary> are for?

what's annoying about that example is that all of those <div>s could be buttons with no other changes. The only content inside the button <div> is the title and folder icon, not the list of examples associated with that title. That's just fine for a button!

The other thing I'd do is add `aria-controls=folder0` to the button that toggles visibility of the list with `id=folder0`

I'll do you one better and argue they could `<details>` elements. This is a perfect use case for that.

I use them EXTENSIVELY but some don't like them for being annoying to control en-masse with the "toggle all folders" button at the top. But yeah I 100% agree with you. I've snuck them into a webapp where I just needed that much local state rather than have the whole page's state care about the collapse/open state of that one thing.

The most common reason I've seen is whining about having to override default button styles.

I too have encountered this reasoning.

Then I write some basic CSS and show them they have nothing to fear.

Yet, I still remain irritated beyond belief that its such a common thing. In 2025. Hell, in 2017!

I don't know what to do about it, other than constantly remind people about things, but it gets tiring.

Though, its a great interview question. Its a quick way to understand if someone knows the fundamentals or not.

Kinda like how people got ".bind" wrong on functions for years.