Certainly. But the problem here wasn't "we want flags", but that the client (via the designer) demanded something that couldn't fit in a select box and so we had to build our own.
Now, I think part of the problem is that such elements weren't architectured properly when invented. Like many other HTML elements, they should've had some way to style and/or improve them.
E.g. an H1 Header, I can apply CSS to and change it from the default to something matching the business style. I can add some behaviour to it, so I can bookmark it's id anchor. I can add some behaviour to turn the H1-6 into a nice table-of-contents. Or an image can be improved with some CSS and JS to load progressively. But most form elements, and the dropdown in particular, is hard to improve.
And, yes, I am aware of the can of worms if "any element is allowed inside an <option>". Or the misuse designers will do if we can add CSS to certain <options> or their contents. Though I don't think "webdevs will abuse" was ever the reason not to hand power to them. It was mostly a disconnect between the "designers of the specs" and the "designers/builders of websites".
Because that "abuse" is never worse than what is still done en-masse: where we simply replace the "select" with hundreds of lines of CSS, divsoup, and hundreds or thousands of lines of JS. Where entire component libraries exist and used all over the place, that completely replicate the behaviour of existing (form) elements but with divs/spans, css and js. And despite the thousands of hours of finetuning, still get details wrong in the area of a11y, on mobile platforms, on obscure platforms, with a plugin, with a slow connection and so on.
you can get the LLM to output max patches in JSON and copy paste directly into max. it was pretty decent at it when I tried and would probably be even better with relevant recent documentation in context.
some people only think about life as a way to make money. unfortunately coding was best-in-slot career for too long and these kinds of people hijacked the culture.
Is there any evidence that those things actually work? I haven't done a lot of research on it, but I asked my ENT about it and she said that they don't have a great success rate and they're pretty expensive so I don't want to pay for it.
If I recall correctly, the better form of bimodal stimulation was found by Susan Shore et al.[1][2][3]. Lenire created a quick and dirty version and got it approved, while Shore's device is still stuck in limbo.
If it ever gets approved, it should be considerably better than Lenire, but it's sure taking its time.
I had great success with Lenire, at the end of the six month (twice a day, 30 minutes) treatment the intensity of my tinnitus had definitely decreased, but almost more importantly I'd been reconditioned not to focus on it as much.
After months of effort, a particular application was still not working, so a consultant was called in from another part of the company. He concluded that the existing approach could never be made to work reliably. While on his way home he realized how it could be done. After a few days work he had a demonstration program working and presented it to the original programming team.
Team leader: How long does your program take when processing?
Consultant: About 10 seconds per case.
Team leader: But our program only takes 1 second. {Team look smug at this point}
Consultant: But your program doesn't work. If the program doesn't have to work then I can make it as fast as you like.
if a feature I want is in the paid product then I assume there's less chance of it being added to the free version. every feature has to go through a process to decide if it's paid or free.
If there's money to be made the possibility that the feature will ever exist at all goes way up. I'd rather have the ability to pay for a feature if I decide I need it than to hope some maintainer gets around to building it for free.
They've said that the feature they put in the premium product are the features they don't want to build or maintain without being paid to do so.
