cjpearson

Atomic CSS class names have no semantic information and they are not meant to. If you need a class to describe what an element does, you're free to add one.

The amount of class names is off-putting at first, but you get used to it pretty quickly. (I'd also recommend using numbers or sm, md, lg etc for your size increments, but to each their own.)

Tailwind and friends aren't trying to solve the CSS Zen Garden problem. Their focus is on re-usable CSS rather than re-usable HTML. Depending on your needs that may be better or worse.

The main differences are that inline styles don't give you the ability to set responsive or pseudo-class variants and that using classes limits you to values defined in your design system.

Volta is also written in Rust. I've only used it for managing Node and npm versions, but it can do more than that and describes itself as a "tool manager" rather than a node version manager.

https://docs.volta.sh/guide/

Just to add on to this, I've found using dev/master or any other two-trunk setup also tends to encourage bad habits. One branch is seen as the 'production-ready' trunk while the other becomes 'broken-or-incomplete-code-ok' trunk.

When it comes to releases maintenance branches like you suggest are a lot more flexible and allow you to support old versions. Releasing v1.1 after v2 doesn't really work if all your releases have to be a merge to master.

It's an awkward literal translation, but I see the author's thinking in how they break it apart.

I've seen "Freundschaft" translated as either "amity" or "friendship". Going off of Duden (I'm not a native speaker), it seems "Feindschaft" also has two definitions. The first is a hostile attitude towards another person, and the second is a relationship defined by this attitude. I'd translate the first as "enmity", but unless you consider "enemyship" to be a word there isn't a perfect translation for the second definition.

Xenophobia is the best translation based on actual usage, but the words still have noticeably different roots. "stranger-enmity"/"stranger-enemyship" vs "stranger-fear".

While it's true a third-party attempt is all but hopeless, Nader's campaign isn't the most successful in recent years. Gary Johnson did better in 2016 and Perot did much better in 1992 and 1996 although he wasn't running as a Libertarian or Green.

I believe in the Facebook dispute Apple only disabled their Enterprise account because that's the one they were abusing.

Losing the Enterprise account wouldn't prevent Facebook from pushing their apps on to the store, but they would not longer be able to distribute internal apps outside the App store.

For those without a Medium account, the article is also published on The Atlantic's site.

https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2021/09/why-are-eb...

Because he calls himself a founder and Tesla calls him a founder. Basically a Ray Kroc situation.

So Stack Overflow will be getting its own version of a blue checkmark? Seems to go against the meritocratic, earn-your-rep ethos of the site.

I'm curious how those numbers compare. There seems to be a significant majority in favor of remote work in online forums, but that's not a perfect sample.

There's a lot to admire about Germany's reckoning, especially the Stolpersteine, but the American history is so different that it's a lot harder to apply.

Germans are able to view National Socialism as a horrific 12-year aberration. But in America, slavery was long-term and pervasive. Its presence infects all of our founding myths. Germans can easily denounce and discard Hitler, but it's much harder for us to do that with the likes of Jefferson and Washington.

So much of our American identity is tied up in the founding fathers. Is it possible to celebrate their heroics while denouncing the atrocities they took part in? Washington is the model republican leader, the "American Cincinnatus", and "father of his country". He was courageous, impartial, prudent, and dedicated to the American project. Americans want to see those attributes in themselves and their leaders. Yet he was also a slaveholder and there's no excuse to be made for that.

Jefferson was even worse. Not only did he own slaves, but raped them. He's also the writer of the unofficial American motto and inspiration of many other human rights declaration "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Lincoln later used those words in his denunciations of slavery.

These men don't deserve to be worshiped - frankly no president does - and we do need to have a reckoning with their atrocities rather than brushing them under the rug, but we should not discard their principles which are core to our nation.

America is fairly unique, being a nation of immigrants. "Americanness" doesn't (or shouldn't) represent any ethnicity or religious group, but rather belief in American values like individuality, industriousness, equality, forward-looking and so on. And also the carrying of the original sins of slavery and genocide that the nation was built on top of.

Training internally makes a lot of sense, but it's also a huge hurdle and expense if your developers don't already have rust experience.

What was the process of proposing rust and getting buy-in like?

So I've just tinkered around a bit in Rust, and I'm not intimately familiar with the language. My experience has been pretty good, but I don't see how it's a good fit for the web domain. At least not the enterprisey, CRUD, business apps I'm used to building.

I'd be curious to hear from people who have been using Rust for their web backends, though. Beyond the classic selling points of speed and safety, what benefits have you found that apply to web development? Have you had any issues with the ecosystem or finding developers?

It's debatable whether they achieved it, but at one time Stack Overflow explicitly stated that their goal was to be a middle ground between a transient Q&A site and a wiki. That philosophy is why they allow everyone (even those without an account) to edit posts and why they close duplicate questions.

I'll have to check those out. For Schulz would you recommend the Wieniewska or Levine translation?

That would be front-running and it's illegal. The article you linked explains what PFOF is, but in general there's nothing wrong with market makers fulfilling brokerage orders. It means traders get a better price on their order and the market makers earn a profit.

The concern is that when market makers share that profit with brokerages they encourage brokerages to select the market maker that gives them the biggest cut rather than the one who gives the best price for the trader. Still, the trader will never get a worse price than what's available on the exchange. (That's also illegal.)

Probably the biggest downside is that the government would lose a major policy tool. If there are no corporate taxes then there's no way to incentivize companies via tax breaks.

It would also become more important to enforce taxation on corporate benefits. If a company provides a car, jet, mansion etc for an executive's personal use, then they need to put a monetary value on that usage and tax it as income. It's not that it's impossible to do that, but it's an additional hurdle for enforcement. Not only do you have to confirm that the company provided the employee X benefit, but you also have to confirm that they valued it appropriately.

Finally, it's just not good politics. It's really hard to sell a plan like this to voters. Even if it doesn't raise the taxes of the average voter, it sounds like you're moving the burden of taxation from rich companies onto the average citizen.

I think there's a lot of economists who love the idea because it really does simplify things. Besides the framing, there's not really a big difference between subsidies or tax breaks. But that third point is probably what kills it.

I've seen a lot of variance too. There are people on both sides of the argument who feel strongly. Whichever direction a company chooses there are going to be a lot of unhappy employees.

Corporate taxes allow governments some level over control over corporate policy by incentivizing certain behaviors through deductions/credits etc. Also, dropping the corporate tax rate to 0 would probably be politically impossible, even an identical amount was then taxed on the individuals who benefit.

Yeah, I do like working with Tailwind and PurgeCSS and that setup works great. It's a good way of avoiding the unused CSS problem in the first place.

The problem for me is digging into a large existing codebase which has built up thousands of semantic class names and a bunch of nesting in the CSS. I'd like a tool that could tell me what's probably not being used, which I could then use as a starting point for some clean up.

I've struggled with this as well. As far as I can tell there isn't a good solution, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

You can run PurgeCSS in a dry mode to find any unused selectors, but it can't handle any classes that are dynamically generated. If your codebase has used anything like `buttonClass = 'button-' + color`, you may get false positives.

The Chrome Dev Tools coverage can show you how much of a stylesheet is used at runtime, but if you concat everything into a single css file that's used for every page, a single page's usage doesn't help.

What do you mean? Slavery in America was inextricably tied to racism just as the Holocaust was inextricably tied to Antisemitism or the Civil War was inextricably tied to slavery. None of those aspects should be ignored or downplayed. History can be ugly and uncomfortable, but we should try to learn from it rather than ignore it.

I'm sorry, but you've got it completely backwards. If you're doing a word association and the first thing you think of for 'black' or 'African American' is 'slave', then yeah that's racist. But slavery in America (and we are talking about America here, Github is based in the US, not ancient Rome) was 100% connected with and built on top of notions of racial superiority. Addressing issues of racism today does require us to ignore or downplay racism in history.

I agree there needs to be some reform of Section 230 in that direction. The law simply can't handle what the internet and social media have become.

When a platform is curating and recommending content to users, it should be treated more like a publisher and be held responsible for the content it promotes. It doesn't matter if the curation is done by hand or with algorithms.

Providers that simply allow the hosting and basic browsing of content should be protected as long as they are willing to remove illegal content when it is found.

Also, I wouldn't call it censorship at all. If a newspaper publishes an article they claim some responsibility for its content. The same should apply if Facebook highlights an article or YouTube recommends a video.