We may, as engineers, use tools that internally implement software patterns that we have an academic disagreement with. And that doesn't make us any less dignified in our beliefs.
>avoid margins when creating reusable components
so, if this is using margins then they are not using reusable components? I mean, I have a difficult time taking the advice regarding CSS usage from someone not using reusable components.
Aside from all the other things people are saying this person doesn't know about, I don't think they know about the min, max, and clamp CSS functions which when used with margins can be amazing. Not to mention that the need to have different margins in different components uses might be handled with CSS variables, not mentioning that the variable can change due to its context seems an oversight making the rest of the article less than impressive.
on edit: it is of course a cheap shot to argue their site uses margins etc. I just wanted to note that I had sort of a disagreement as to the main takeaway from the article, and then I noted why I disagreed with that takeaway.
The best way to combat clickbait is to not fall for it, not play into it, to either ignore the article, or to read the article and discuss or critique the content instead of bringing more attention(all press is good press) to the title.
All I see is a discussion that’s been massively derailed by a shitty title. If it had a sensible title, perhaps people would be talking about the actual concept that the article was trying to tackle instead of threads like this where people keep having to explain that the title doesn’t match the article.
“Engagement” for the sake of engagement is worthless unless you are optimising for noise instead of signal.
> If a clickbait title will lead to higher engagement, why would an author not use it?
Out of intellectual/professional honesty e.g.?
I think most of us come to Hacker News for interesting discussions, and the torrent of confidently incorrect "this person is wrong" comments is not adding anything to any discussion.
The top comment is already clarifying the title, so any other comment should be unnecessary, especially snarky ones.
The gotcha is another problem in itself: not only it comes from a misunderstanding of the post, a lot of people don't have control over their publishing software, but their advice should be judged on its own merits, not on some "you criticise society yet you participate in it" way [1].
[1] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
By the way, you broke another guideline in your comment: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Anyway, I'm just explaining why other people flagged you. You can choose to try to understand the rationale for your flag/downvotes. Or you can cover your ears and accuse everyone else of being pro-clickbait.
I'm not the OP nor dang, so I can't fix it. About talking about it, I already mentioned that this had been done done, on my first comment: The top comment is already clarifying the title. Several people also replied to you.
That comment was made an hour before you made yours. Also the article itself contextualizes the title, and that would have cleared up your misunderstanding.
> Or you can continue posting comments directly to unknown individuals trying to enlighten them on reasons how their behavior triggers you.
Nothing is triggering me. You clearly seem bothered by the flagging from your edits, so I'm trying to explain to you how this community works. I'm sorry that my explanation doesn't satisfy you, but continuously attacking me won't change anything and won't do any good.
Please don't turn this into a flame war. I'm just trying to engage with you to help you understand. Please don't assume ill intent.