A thing I think of basically every time I write something: we so, so, *so* underuse the capability that things written on the Internet are intrinsically executable.
-
-
You could make some fairly anodyne and generalizable observations about banking but as soon as you say Bank of America your readers in e.g. the UK are going to, quite sensibly, doubt that you had them in mind for the piece.
Show this thread -
"Your localization toolchain and processes should handle this." a) They don't. Basically no organization would actually catch that specific example unless the writer flagged it to localization team directly. b) *So much easier* to write one line of code.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Doesn't _quite_ sound as trivial as you make it sound. Is there a mapping of locales to largest banking institutes somewhere? Available by API, or are you going to dump that data into your article? I don't disagree with you (and I'm sure
@observablehq would emphatically agree) -
Yeah, in fact our latest feature announcement post has a line that only shows if your screen is too small to see the feature! Didn’t have to think too much about it; since the page was already a computational notebook, adding it was basically free. https://observablehq.com/@observablehq/introducing-visual-dataflow …pic.twitter.com/cfHSzzT84G
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Wow, I would love to see some experimentation with this concept. Would namedropping a brand more well-known to the reader increase their "enjoyment" of the piece?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.