If you're asking specifically why the test isn't being maintained, I can somewhat speak to that.
The first Acid test was a relatively simple test that could visually demonstrate if browsers implemented CSS. When IE became the dominant browser, Microsoft essentially stopped all development on IE. At the time, IE had a very broken implementation of CSS (although, it should be noted, IE6 was the best implementation of CSS when it came out, as everybody else was just as bad). The Acid2 test was created in large measure specifically to goad IE into improving its standard compliance (mostly on CSS). As a result of the publicity of the Acid2 test, the other browsers fixed their engines to pass Acid2, which put pressure on IE to fix their engine.
Since it had been effective in pushing browsers to implement the CSS2 standard correctly, the author turned to creating Acid3 to push browsers to implement more technologies. Whereas Acid1 and Acid2 were largely about CSS layout, Acid3 focuses more on testing JS API implementations. Acid3 was heavily criticized for letting browsers score well just by having a very thin, minimal surface implementation of the feature instead of testing thorough correctness, as well as for being very opinionated in pushing browsers to implement specific technologies (SVG fonts being the big one).
By the time Acid3 came out, there was already a change in the development of web browsers. Microsoft was once again participating in the standards compliance process and trying to drive their browser to modern compliance, so all of the major browser vendors were very active in discussion about implementation. Also, the W3C changed its specification process to rely more heavily on having a thorough compliance testsuite that had two passing independent implementations before a standard could be considered finalized. The CSS2.1 testsuite wasn't complete at the time these tests were developed, but has now come out, with almost 10,000 individual tests in them, far more thorough than any of the Acid tests could claim to be.
Since the Acid tests no longer had value in being the most comprehensive tests of their underlying functionality, nor in compelling browser developers to be competitive in standards support, their developer stopped working on the project. Indeed, since Acid3 fails at even being a comprehensive test for what it tests, its author publicly stated that he isn't interested in updating it when specifications update.
Do you know what changed regarding 23, 25, and 35, and why it was at the time considered correct to pass them, but now considered correct to fail them?
I gave the links in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18942546 . Essentially, the exception being thrown changed in 23 and 25, and 35 was actually incorrect to begin with, but no one realized it until browsers started implementing Shadow DOM.
That's not super helpful, for example 25 just says "wrong exception". The original commenter seemed to know exactly why these 3 specific tests were failing, I'm also curious what specific specs changed that are no longer true.
This may be cynical of me, but: "When you're going to break the law, don't leave a physical record."
While I avoid engaging in such, I've directly observed it, and been on the receiving end -- what was done to me was illegal, but it was a 1:1 with no witnesses.
There's a useful purpose in mentioning this. Particularly for people newer and less experienced in the workforce: When co-workers and bosses won't email, IM, or otherwise write with regard to a topic. Nor address it in a group. When someone out of the blue invites you into an office, meeting room, or other private space to discuss it.
Ask yourself, "Why?"
This is one of those cases where your intuition may catch on and manifest, first. If something seems "off" about a topic or line of communication, consider it more closely.
Also works when dealing with third parties. For example, if you are dealing with a salesperson who only ever "talks" about features. Especially 1:1. Best to verify what you're being told, elsewhere, and agree to nothing until you do. (And, if you can, find someone else to deal with who's more straightforward. Not "friendly", but direct and forthright in their communications.)
Any time there is an investigative event, whether a internal one, litigation, police, etc, written communication is a used to infer all sorts of things. Attorneys and others build careers out of sussing these details out of email.
Do some googling of “Enron email corpus analysis” or similar things for examples.
It’s very easy for someone to say even innocuous things that in a different context sound damning or infer a state of mind that may or may not be accurate, but can give someone a way to dig into more detail.
We all have different problems. I cannot install Facebook or Messenger on a Sony phone.
due to a permission, that used to be defined by Sony in pre-Android 7 and now is defined by Facebook, i.e. by app with different signature. The old permission definition still lingers on the phone and the only way to get rid of it is to reset the phone to factory settings. Which I'm obviously not going to do.
What phone are you using? I've had a Galaxy S3, S5, and now S7. I can (and have) uninstalled Facebook on all of them. None of them came with it installed?
Sure - but Kubernetes (and many other things) are enabled by Docker. To overuse the Metaphor, containers in shipping weren't a big deal until Container Ports/Cranes/Ships/Trucks came along - we say that "Containers" revolutionized transport as a short hand for all those systems that were built on them.
