I decided to use classes rather than id's because I knew my project page would have multiple characters on it. So I didn't want to have multiple elements with an id of "left-eye" or "nose" etc. But I guess I could have prefixed everything with the characters name and used ID's instead.
From what I see in the CSS files, you already prefixed (edit: by prefixed, I mean child selectors) everything with the character's name, which is where my confusion comes from. Either everything should use class selectors, or characters should use a class selector and the constituent body parts should be ID selectors.
This indeed makes (almost) no sense. It makes no sense for sure if you intend to have several characters on the page — id must be unique, and it does not matter that something is in front of it.
.some-class #some-id makes sense only if you want to style page-unique elements differently in some cases but even in that case I'd argue that #some-page-id #some-id would be better (assuming #some-page-id is the body element id).
The calls to JavaScript functions that are ID-based would certainly not work. But there are many ways to access them that wouldn't.
In regard to the selector type, does Homer have more than one left eye? More than likely not, but that's why I suggested using all class selectors as an option. Using all class selectors would enable you to produce (a) as many Homers as you'd like and (b) as many left eyes, right eyes, mouths, etc as you'd like.
Mixing classes and IDs in CSS selectors causes headaches at scale because IDs change the order of precedence. These days I just avoid using them in CSS altogether.
How long have you been doing that? There's an email address of mine in that list that is much more likely to have been given to Macromedia back in the late '90s or very early 2000s - I was working at a different company in '02 and am quite unlikely to have given the older email address out after then…
I use them all, but predominately Windows for my actual coding and then I deploy to a Debian development server that mimics my production settings with debugging enabled. I don't enjoy the OS X GUI and always find it clunky. Cost of Apple products also dissuades me significantly. I can more than afford their products, but I can't justify it because I can build what I feel is a better machine for significantly less. Linux is great, but no Photoshop and I always find myself tinkering with it (though this isn't a bad thing, just not time efficient).
Ultimately, I find I'm more productive in a Windows environment, and that's what counts for me.
Pretty sure I'll continue to put SSH on a non-standard port. I already monitor my systems and its their logs heavily, and this cuts down on 99% of SSH-related spam. Any attack that's serious, the port will not matter.
It's clearly intended as a joke. It's a slideshow shown to people with technological backgrounds. Most people in computer-based work have seen poorly selected stock photos like these to depict hackers/terrorists/whatever.
1. I learned in the 4th grade. I built my elementary school's static website and was allowed to use the computer lab instead of attending class, as my parents had already taught me the majority of stuff through ~6th/7th grade level. It was a "gifted" classroom, and most of the students were there with me. After I built the website, I had my parents buy me a book on C, which happened to be K&R. I can't say I understood exactly what I was doing at that age (I doubt anyone ages 8-11 really has that mental connection), but I knew how to make command line programs.
2. See 1, more or less. I'd say I -really- started to learn when I built my own website in high school that started bringing in money and still does today. It was a full web application to start and I just kept rebuilding it from scratch as I learned new stuff (object-oriented programming, design patterns, etc).
3. I wouldn't really call myself a professional. I went into bioengineering and medicine, but I still program every day because it runs our current world and will for the foreseeable future. I market myself as a software engineer, but I only accept jobs I find interesting or that pay 6-7 figure salaries.
Khan Academy isn't good and never will be. It fills the gap for new college students who didn't pay attention in class and never learned how to read a textbook. True classroom education comes from sharing experience, not regurgitating material and doing practice problems.
Of course it is you who knows where "true classroom education" comes from. I can think of many actual examples of classroom education that happened without sharing experience, although maybe not "true classroom education".
What else is classroom education if you're not sharing experience? You can study on your own, so putting stuff on the board from a book doesn't count. You can do practice problems on your own, so going through examples from a book doesn't count. What else is left? The only thing to be gained from a classroom is experience that's unique to classmates and the instructor.
Many people (including me) learn much better from listening to a person talk than from reading textbooks, even with no avenue to communicate back to that person.
You likely don't know how to read textbooks correctly. It's a legitimate problem in school systems around the world - most kids are taught from an early age to do exactly what the teacher says and that's how you learn. Thus, they never learn anything on their own.
I doubt you could come up with anything since you can only learn from other people, apparently. "Learning styles" is just another way of pronouncing "lazy".
Everything is based on stored bits. It's how those bits are interpreted that matters. No banker should care that they store bits instead of physical cash. It simply doesn't matter. I've only ever seen inept programmers think that everyone should know the underlying technology, which I guess you could say is hypocritical, as I doubt many of them truly understand what's happening in the lower levels of programming, physics, or math. Abstraction - it's important.
That is all going to change as the world becomes more data driven. As a sales person, relationships are important, but still without a deep understanding of my data, I would be incredibly inefficient. Talk like that also sounds like what the Equities traders were saying up until 2007 or 2008. I don't need to know tech, I don't need to know algos, until they were replaced by trading tech and those same guys who were making 1.5-2 MM/yr couldn't get 150K jobs. Automation and electronification are happening. Only people at Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein's level can truly afford to be luddites. As the old guard dies, the youth will start changing everything. Technocrats vs Plutocrats will rule.
I'm sure it'll make money since it's exploiting the lazy. The folding is a nice touch, but it's essentially useless since it puts unwanted creases and wrinkles in clothes. They aren't following tag instructions, either. Based on this, here are the steps that are actually useful:
1. Separate white clothing from non-white clothing.
2. Place white clothing in washer and add soap.
3. Place white clothing in dryer.
4. Place non-white clothing in washer.
5. Remove white clothing from dryer.
6. Place non-white clothing in dryer.
7. Remove non-white clothing from dryer.
That's all they're doing for people besides giving them a little soap. It's about 5 minutes of work, so around $300/hour if they're efficient, assuming one bag per customer. This is a scam YC if I've ever seen it.
Let's say I'm an entry-level freelancer who bills out at $100/hr.
It's 5PM on a Wednesday. I need to do the laundry because I have a client meeting tomorrow and they usually look at me funny when I wear crumpled tee shirts that smell kinda funky. I could do one of two things:
1. Work for an hour, generating $100, and spend 20% of that getting someone else to do my laundry. (Plus, I get to drink beer when I'm working at my desk, and I don't get to drink beer at the laundromat.)
The whole concept crystalizes what I never liked about living in big cities. The tiny apartments with no amenities and the endless expenses to get basic stuff done.
My scenario, since I own a house with a washer and dryer: It's 5PM, I realize I need clean clothes for the next day. I spend 2 minutes gathering them up and putting them in the washer, then go back to my beer, or whatever else I'm working on. An hour later, I spend 60 seconds loading the clean clothes into the dryer. 30 minutes after that, give or take, I spend 5 minutes folding them and putting them away.
No scheduling. No waiting for SMSs and pickups. No giving strangers keys to my home. $25 still in my pocket (and given the time I spent, I paid myself a $180/hr rate in that savings).
But hey, if they can make a business out of it, more power to them. Doesn't hurt my feelings any.
Basically, $2/1000 gallons of water & $0.10/kWh for electricity (I did not bother calculating for gas dryers) were the most recent US averages I could find, and that was rounding up (e.g., electricity was actually > $0.09 but < $0.10).
I used this calculator[2], and plugged in appropriate values where I could find most current data.
There are actually some nice 2L washers, which you don't even need to install, just plug in. jmduke might prefer the laundromat, but it's not needed even if you live in a big city.
Dude, it doesn't take an hour to do the laundry, that's like arguing that you could pay someone to wash you at your desk instead of taking a shower.
For a single guy (which means probably everything is cotton and colorfast) it's maybe 10 minutes because nobody expects you to actually iron anything. For women (who actually think about their clothes and whose clothes are more complicated in terms of mixed fabrics, special handling) it's still only 25 minutes or so. That's the whole point of having a washing machine, it's a time-saving appliance. If you do go to the laundromat you may not be able to drink a beer, but on the other hand you can kick back and read.
I mean, there's nothing wrong with using a laundry service, which is why most laundromats offer wash and fold. But then again if it's 5pm on a Wednesday you have loads of time to just buy a new t-shirt on the way home from work.
This is what I get for trying to make cogent points about articles an hour after I've read them. Leaving my comment unedited to better bask in my own shame.
If you have your own washer/dryer, you could also just spend a few minutes doing the laundry while you still work or play or do whatever you want.
Also, there's more to life than money, although I understand how one could become obsessed with it if people making $100+/hour can't afford a place with their own washer/dryer in-unit.
It's 5PM on a Wednesday. You need to do the laundry because you have a client meeting tomorrow, but you decide to use Prim. They have an average return time of one day, so you end up going to the client meeting naked, since they didn't get your clothes back in time.
