Ariel Millennium Thornton @arielmt@computerfairi.es

Welcome to Computer Fairies, where the ✨​sparkles✨​ are lively fairy dust, not lifeless AI slop.

Happy new moon, everyone!

Merry esbat to those who celebrate the new moon.

Remember, don't look directly at the sun during the eclipse, not even with homemade hacks. By the time you realize you're damaging your vision at all, your eyes are already wrecked, probably for life.

The easiest no-hack no-device way to enjoy the eclipse is to park yourself in a spot with the sun poking through small openings, like under a shade tree, and watch the sunbeams in the shadows turn from round to crescents instead.

LB: https://muffin.industries/@wayback_exe/117078727925053115

Blue and Hot Dog Stand themed website.

Thanks for reminding me, Learn.Microsoft.Com, that I needed to do this on my workstation's #Firefox as well:

1. Go to about:config

2. Search for the setting: layout.css.scrollbar-width-thin.disabled

2.a. Just searching for "thin" should be enough to find the setting.

3. Toggle from "false" (its default) to "true".

Reload the page whose front end designers made the scrollbars thin, to get proper normal scrollbars on it.

Every OS sucks, including my favorite.

Literally no change at all, and now the validation message is back.

And I solved it. Apparently, the order of multiplicands matters significantly in CSS (or at least to a validator).

calc(2 * 3lh) is invalid.
calc(3lh * 2) is valid.

Length times unit-less value is valid CSS, but unit-less value times length is not, according to the W3C CSS Validator. I wonder if it's using the rules for validating division, where the operand order matters, for validating multiplication, where it shouldn't.

The W3C CSS Validator was giving the message "Value Error : max-width The types are incompatible 2ch)" on the following CSS:

:root { --sprocket-width: 3lh; }

@media screen and (width > calc(80ch + 6lh)) {
.code:has(pre) {
max-width: calc(100% - (2 * var(--sprocket-width)) - 2ch);
}
}

The validator was. Now, with no change at all to the max-width line, it's passing validation.

"Hey, can anyone help me with this CSS validation error? Wait, let me get the exact message again."

*Fixes a typo buried deep in a string of comments hundreds of lines up from the nearest validation error.*

*Re-validates document to get the validation error message back.*

*The document passes and is declared valid CSS.*

"Wat"