Subscript5676

Haven't read the article yet, but oh idk, oil, clear erosion of the USA's sphere of influence by their hands, and potentially an ally that would help pincer the States in case of a war? The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

What the Japanese have observed is what I'm seeing too. China is using every tool in the shed to try to establish itself as a superpower at the expense of others.

China will use international platforms to berate others for things that they're happy to do themselves, regardless if others call them out on their hypocrisy. They'll cry to the UN when nations that they don't yet have great leverage over slaps them on the hand near their backyard, like when their dangerous ships get confiscated.

They are pouring money into developing nations like Pakistan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and have been trying to do the same with many other Southeast Asian countries, while simultaneously getting in a conflicts with them over the South China Sea. This seems contradicting, but my take is that their goal is to secure their trade route from being blockaded in case of a more heated conflict, e.g. a war. They may be building out roads and highways in their Belt & Road Initiative, but maritime trade is still the most cost-effective option, and it would be terrible to be cut off from that, or if they need to make large detours.

Coming back on topic, I don't like the fact that there are nations with more saying at any given international platform, be it the US, China, or Japan, be it because of whatever reason. But it also says something about these platforms, either that they haven't scrutized themselves sufficiently, or that even Japan have come to think that the UN has failed in its non-partisaness that they're taking matters into their own hands.

This timeline sucks.

Agree with the geographic take. China is trying its imperial powers in a way where they choose their own enemies. They also have maritime disputes with SEA in areas where their supplies would come from, in an attempt to seize control of their own lifelines. They've also been pumping money into various countries in the SEA despite the conflict to gain soft power over them, so that a blockade of the Straits of Malacca would be less likely to happen in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. Of course, they continue to build out other avenues to reduce if not move their reliance on such chokepoints, Myanmar and Pakistan being prime examples, aside from their whole Belt and Road Initiative.

Back to Taiwan though, TSMC is still the leading semiconductor company that leads everyone else by a far margin, and if it's under the control of one country and they deny access of other countries to it, they would be able to gain technological supremacy in a few years, provided that they continue to guard their secrets from spies, which, to be fair, will definitely intensify in such a world. TSMC's plans, though, is that in the event of an invasion, they will destroy their fabs.

I don't know why you think I haven't mentioned it's advantages at all or is trying to paint me as not wanting to acknowledge "plainly obvious advantages". I literally said that Tailwind is the industry's current answer to working with CSS in a way that seems to work with the current and modern economic pressures. I have literally mentioned in my other comment that its advantage is that it's as an easier to learn, easier to collab tool. Idk what else I'm supposed to say.

You were asked to say the benefits of Tailwind, but instead of saying what the clear benefits are, you are the one who chose to answer by saying that "many industry experts use it". I thought it was a ridiculous reply, and so I chose to be ridiculous to draw parallels of your logic to justifying for the existence of fossil fuel companies. If you do not understand the concept of similies and hyperbole, I'm sorry I can't help you there.

And you seem to fail to see the bigger picture of things and simply treated my other comment as a "I claim that this is the right way to go". I do not claim that it is one, and is merely lamenting on the fact that there was, and emphasis here to help you read, what I think was a better way. If you're going by the metric that economies are efficient if only things can be made quickly, then my comment is pointing out that you are simply trapped by dogma, and is merely being a part to toxic capitalism where it's a rat race to the bottom of the barrel.

If you think CSS with the C is "slowing down development and is increasing complexity as well as potential for bugs and side effects", then you are part of the problem. And no, I do not agree that people have "tried to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time". What I see instead is that they have simply lived with it because we haven't gotten to a point where we write SS without the C. Seriously, I still don't understand that if virtually an entire industry just hates the cascade so much, why haven't y'all just removed it?

I'm not sure if my message is getting across to you, because it seems like you are very much happy with the state of things and the direction it's going at. And you don't have to spend your energy talking to someone who's clearly on the minority and losing side of the industry. I'm just some person who happens to like CSS with the C, and enjoy writing CSS so much as it allows me to so concisely describe what I want across an entire application, and is simply lamenting on the fact that we haven't did much to improve literacy of CSS, thinking that better CSS literacy translates to better engineers. So save your breath and energy pal.

Doesn't it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach?

That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence. You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it's been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?

Please also see my other comment

https://vger.to/lemmy.ca/comment/20657420

IMO, the industry decided to take the wrong direction, which I would agree makes sense from an economics perspective, but man, all I see is short term gains over long term ones, where we would've been able to build better solutions than hacks upon hacks (not using that fully derogatorily tbh). We could've spent all that energy, money, and time to bettering CSS and improving education to help people understand the cascade and specificity, while building better, more computationally efficient solutions that would minimize our bundles better and make JS a lot tamer than it is.

But I'm blabbering.

That's what I mean though, that the popular frameworks are made to fight the cascade.

Modern web development claims that apps aren't documents and simply disregarded the cascade as an artifact of document-based design, but they're entirely wrong IMO. The cascade is made for consistency and tempo of your websites, and that's a universal design principle irrespective of whether you're making a website, woodcrafting, pottery, or what have you. Tailwind itself claims to give devs the ability to be consistent, but we already have that, and it's the cascade.

Managing the cascade is, understandably, non-trivial, especially in a large enough team. It requires discipline and a good understanding of what not to do, and can take time to practice and perfect. So I understand that in our crazy economic world where speed is everything, learning something new is treated as something that's in the way, and so we churn out devs that aren't proficient in CSS, and they then come to train other devs, who will also not be proficient in CSS. This all lowers the barrier of entry, which is good when looked at microscopically, but in the grand scheme of things, so much of our energy is put into fighting the cascade. Just think of all the styling solutions for CSS-in-JS frameworks that we've churned through in the last 10 years. Madness IMO, but economies gotta economize.

Edit: yeah sorry, I get really passionate about this topic

As someone who writes a lot of CSS, and actually like CSS (yeah, unheard of, I know; I'm some alien), Tailwind doesn't just seem like it's reinventing the wheel and wrapping over an existing language, which is weird when you think about those two being mentioned together, is also bad for other reasons:

• UserCSS becomes near impossible to use
• Web scraping becomes a gigantic mess; LLMs become the only viable solution, and let's not even get started on how crazy that sounds
• Semantic HTML becomes difficult to verify and build upon due to the sheer amouns of TEXT (and if you go "But you can put your most commonly used declarations together in a class selector and use that!" then congratulations you almost just wrote CSS), and in relation to this...
• It encourages bad CSS practices and thus bad HTML practices, as if the terrible walls of text isn't already difficult to debug when working for accessibility
• RIP traditional SEO, and thus RIP any small players who want to create and maintain their own search engine, and only large companies with a lot of resources can hire people to spend a fuck ton of time to scrape and index the web. SEO already has a ton of problems as it were, and Tailwind just adds a new dimension to the problem.

If the web industry as a whole could slow down and learn to live with the cascade (seriously, the cascade is your friend!), and stop demanding that we do CSS without the C, that'd be great.

Thanks for walking pass me standing on my soapbox that virtually nobody cares about.

I don't claim it to be common practice, just saying that it exists. That said, it may be "niche" in the grand scheme of things, but by no means do I think it's small and insignificant. If anything, such codebases are typically foundational libraries in the giant stack of cards most other software engineers build.

See also antirez's article about code comments https://www.antirez.com/news/124 You'll notice how some of the snippets would've easily failed your criteria.

I think comment ratio could be a fairly misleading metric. There are programs out there that requires a lot of context upfront that distills down to just a few lines of code, and especially those that are more academically interesting.

The genre for anything with a heavy cutscene amount is typically "Story rich". Doesn't tell you the ratio between cutscenes and action, but that's messy to measure anyways.

If you wanna get pedantic and actually measure that ratio, you could start with a new kind of genre with something like 60S40A for 60% story 40% action and see if there'd be enough people who care enough to use the same labelling.

Otherwise, read some reviews?

Just zoning out for a bit, cozily with a hot cup of your favourite drink is a lofty dream these days.

Recently got one via Clove from the UK https://www.clove.co.uk/

I was pretty nervous getting it cause did not really know how it was gonna go, and they asked for a photo of my credit card (without the secrets of course) and proof of residence, which was a bit spooky, but it's their attempt (or so they say) at pushing back against potential scalpers.

Do check Fairphone's community form about owning one this way though, cause there's been other Canadians who have gotten the phone, and they have tidbits to share about. We also don't get warranty cause we're outside the EU AFAIK.