Actually looking at it on mobile I see a few issues. Scroll on mobile interferes with the slider. Also some of the font sizes are too large and overflow. Is the source repository public? Or was the request for a PR hyperbole?

Edit: I see it was posted a few comments up.

Honestly Claude is not great at front end design. So it’s more than an “off chance”. That being said I think the site looks fine.

Opus 4.6 and 4.7 can probably come up with something better than most open source contributors, given a few iterations.

We should figure out how to get more designers contributing to open source.

Simpsons did it!

Yes. I’ve wanted something like this for a while. I’ve always wondered why there isn’t version control for DAWs. So many times I’ve spent hours editing a track and accidentally saved it without specifying a unique file name. Only to open it later and wish I could go back to before the changes that fucked it up.

The good version controls used for code & text are line-oriented; most DAW session file formats are semantically scoped, and so the VC tools won't work well.

Most DAWs allow you to "snapshot" a session at any time, and return to it as you want to. Certainly Ardour does that.

Reaper makes periodical autosaves.

Logic Pro allows you to revert to previous saves / auto-saves.

That doesn’t look similar at all. That looks like an app for making loops on your phone.

You might want to re-read the headline.

Pretty sure there’s a shorter path to the top of the intestines than through the nose but I’m no Biologist.

If you’re implying it is through the rectum, you’ve definitely got some bio to brush up on. The small intestine alone is >20ft long.

There really isn't. From the mouth is basically the same distance and it contains teeth and a tongue. Through the rectum is much much much farther through meters of intestine. Through the skin creates a surgical hole that's going to be difficult to keep sterile.

The shortest safe path is via the nostril.

> Why would I do that, if I can easily extract all the relevant, plain text (and even structured one) and read it in my editor instead?

Because that’s an enormous pain in the ass. Not scalable at all.

Its pretty easy with a system like Readwise. Yes, that's ANOTHER system, but its one system to quickly just add articles like these to an inbox and read them another time, in plain text.

Of course, it doesn't work 100% and certain sites are hostile to it and do stupid javascript tricks "for the views".

Mostly, I use it to put it on a reading list later, and to get around really, really abusive ad driven sites.

> Its pretty easy

100%. One can use mozilla/readability to extract the content. Even if you think that would require some effort, think about it - you have to do it ONLY once and never deal with that kind of annoyance EVER again. It really baffles me seeing devs complaining about shit like that. Why? Why won't they figure out a better way? You're a friggin' programmer - computers have to obey your will. You spend your lifetime staring at the screen, reading and editing text. Why not do it on your own terms? Even if it takes some effort, why choose to be henpecked by someone else's rules FOREVER?

That's a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options.

I've never heard of that product but man, that's an... unfortunate name.