- 5 Posts
- 59 Comments
How small is small? And what happens beyond it?
2·4 months agoWtf is that intro. I’d have been interested in what the title teases, but that off tangents/topic (for supposed lightening humor) made me leave.
1·4 months agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Altman#Other_endeavors
Another CEO resigned, and he took over (for eight days).
And the last one was “The radio star killed the video”.
7·5 months agoThey didn’t redefine efficiency. They changed the purpose scoping.
…in a very localized and narrow market.
It’s not that simple of an answer. If you want to label the past working fine as such you also have to accept and include the living standards and social-economic environment. Because our environment and world and how we live today are vastly different from back then.
How would you barter-trade production parts of a car, the building of a car, and then that car? How would you barter-trade research and technology development?
Without money, do you pay in a narrow, restrictive way like a place to live and food? Or do you pay in something that can be traded like money - where you practically replaced currency money with a different form of currency money?
You should be able to edit the actual post URL. Given that the old URL leads nowhere (404) I think there’s no reason not to update it.
Not every user is weaponization.
They’re learning through hands-on experience [only].
From their description:
0:46 Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire — Zack Snyder
3:32 1984 — Diana Ringo
4:58 Poor Things — Yorgos Lanthimos
6:18 Jung_E — Yeon Sang-ho
8:11 65 — Scott Beck, Bryan Woods
10:01 The Creator — Gareth Edwards
12:25 Infinity Pool — Brandon Cronenberg
14:35 Awareness — Daniel Benmayor
16:40 57 Seconds — Rusty Cundieff
18:37 They Cloned Tyrone — Juel Taylor
21:02 The Wandering Earth 2 — Frant Gwo
22:47 The Mill — Sean King O’Grady
26:16 Foe — Garth Davis
26:23 Simulant — April Mullen
28:32 The Pod Generation — Sophie Barthes
30:57 Asteroid City — Wes Anderson
You’re screaming in the shower?
1·11 months ago.btn { @apply m-2 p-2 bg-blue text-white }lol, they’re basically writing a CSS class with CSS rules
Why bother to even use @apply? Just write the damn CSS.
I agree.
Wouldn’t it work with adequate scoping of components?
A UI component gets an adequate, scoped, unique class name and CSS.
I imagine tailwind doesn’t actually solve parent CSS declarations bleeding into components if they are not explicitly defined/overwritten?
Websites that use reasonable or good HTML markup with structure, the correct HTML tags, useful ids and classes are great to work with. But regularly you see websites with generated HTML without any useful identifiers or structure. A generated garbled mess of anonymous, generic components and styling CSS classes.
I’ve worked on content extraction for OpenTermsArchive and write my own injected CSS hacks and browser extensions. Working with good website sources is great. Working with garbled messes is awful.
HTML losing its markup aspect - that you can traverse and select - makes websites inaccessible.
/edit - adding:
The CSS tailwind generates might not be bloated, but repeating the gigantic strings of classes all over your codebase certainly adds to the size of the final HTML output.
The HTML is not just bigger, but bloated and inaccessible. HTML markup with identifiers and classes is readable and understandable. It has structure and labeling. Inlining styling rules bloats it to the point of unreadability. And losing identifiers and classes is a loss of labeling and selectors.
But why is CSS so undervalued when it’s a necessary component of most websites and applications? Heydon Pickering writes that it’s partially due to the femininity of CSS: In my experience, men especially earn kudos for their knowledge of JavaScript or Python, but little from CSS skills. CSS, which makes things look ‘pretty’, is considered feminine (don’t tell that to a peacock).
Uh, what? I’ve never seen or heard that kind of perspective. And I don’t agree with it.
Technical teams certainly often focus on the more technical aspects. With requirements and [time] pressure, technical teams often remain within that view scope.
But as soon as you get other people on board technicality loses its importance. What you see is what you discuss and present and has impact.
I would have never thought of putting a gender on one or the other, or on a language.
CSS being a feminine language isn’t a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I’d argue that all programming is feminine as it was pioneered by women (who were then pushed out by men).
This argumentation seems pretty pointlessly far off of the topic at hand. Why do you feel the need to categorize programming - and even all of programming - into a gender? That’s completely misguided.
I don’t think non-toxicity results in echo chambers though. The two are not mutually exclusive. Not even directly related.
Dunno if you’re targeting the emotional impact or drawing the line on interaction style - but being respectful and non-toxic does not cost anything more than the opposite. I certainly prefer interactions without toxic noise that have little to do with the people or topic involved.
???
I don’t get it. I don’t get the equivalence - if that’s what you were going for.
Very cute