Comment by gaigalas
2 days ago
Dude, the recreation is a joke (hopefully an intentional one). It uses the screenshot instead of the assets.
Go ahead, turn on the Web Inspector, and remove the body background:
2 days ago
Dude, the recreation is a joke (hopefully an intentional one). It uses the screenshot instead of the assets.
Go ahead, turn on the Web Inspector, and remove the body background:
The article mentions this:
> So it kind of cheated, though it clearly felt angst about it. After trying a few ways to get the stars to line up perfectly, it just gave up and copied the screenshot in as the background image, then overlaid the rest of the HTML elements on top.
That does not make the title any less clickbaity. Moreover, it does not seem like a vindication of johnfn's original comment.
index_tiled.html is what justifies the title IMO - it's not using a screenshot as the background like index.html, and is as close as you can get using the original assets given the screenshot's scaling and compression artifacts (minus the red text being off).
But I feel it'd make more sense to just retake the screenshot properly and see if it can create a pixel-perfect replica.
The outcome does not justify @johnfn's redemption celebration. That's why I decided to give him a heads up.
Aside from that, I think it's a joke. Like the value of pi example I gave in the other comment. If it's not, it is really just sad.
Please read the blog post!
It's a joke, right? A joke similar to this one:
---
> Make me a python script that calculates the value of PI
```python
print("3.1415")
```
"I think it's passable!" <--- The joke
---
If it's not a joke, then it's just sad.
I hate to tell you this but all digital representations of pi are numeric approximations. Your joke works, but perhaps not in the direction you were angling for.
1 reply →
First, you're being unnecessarily acerbic. It doesn't help your case, and it's just kinda weird!
Second, the original post was obviously about the placement of the buttons on the space jam website.
Third, I spend at least half the blog post responding to the exact complaint you have. If you do not have more to add beyond pointing out that the 'hack' exists, you aren't adding to the conversation.
Fourth, the blog post and the repo has a version that does not include the screenshot and actually tiles the gif.
I'm still convinced you haven't actually read the blog post because you have shown zero indication that you are engaging with the material. In which case, why even bother commenting?
1 reply →