Stop blogging on medium. I start to read your post and as I'm scrolling down the page, I get a full-page modal nagging me to subscribe. Why should I listen to anything you have to say about user experience?
Anyone who accepts such pattern on read-only website is not authority on UX any longer.
It is like security expert who tells you to use same password everywhere. “If you use TOTP with it, you will be quite safe”. Yes, but recommendation reveals lack of knowledge .
The problem is having to look in a different file for styling a component, and having to come up with a name for (at least one) CSS class per component. In traditional CSS, classes are intended to be reusable. You write a class definition once, and then use it in a bunch of different elements.
When working with a component-based UI (like in React), the components are typically the unit of reuse. Those CSS classes are used in one place: the component they're defined for. It's annoying to have to come up with a name for them, and to have to work in a separate file, especially if I just want `padding-inline: 4px` or `display: flex`.
Some argue separation of concerns, but CSS is inherently tightly coupled to the structure of your HTML: there's no getting around that. `.foo > ul` breaks if you replace that `ul` child with an `ol`.
I do agree that more intricate styling is harder to read with Tailwind, and I have some other gripes, too, but in general it's a good trade-off for component-based UIs.
“The Homer” is best compared to the M2 Bradley, whose development process was described in the book (and later movie) “The Pentagon Wars”. Unfortunately, all large combat systems (most notably ships) tend to come with a grab bag of ‘features’ of varying utility.
The M2 Bradley is an amazing vehicle, which does not accomplish the goals which its development program started with (basically a low-cost and reliable armored personnel carrier). This is why the M113 is still in service.
They may be referring to the campaign Burton waged against the Bradley's testing program.
Basically he wanted the Army to do a bunch of tests we already knew the outcome of: that the munitions in question would defeat the armor. This wasn't some sort of scandal or surprise to the pentagon. No armored vehicle is invincible, and the Bradley is already as heavily armored as is practical to cross bridges without them collapsing, etc.
Burton made a ton of enemies treating this like some sort of huge scandal he was uncovering, but in reality he was distorting the situation, then used it to popularize his book.
Basically he's just a grifter, but because he was saying contrarian things a bunch of people who had no idea what was actually happening bought into his bullshit.
It's similar to what happened with the "Fighter Mafia" where the public latched onto it without understanding how utterly bullshit the contrarian proposal actually was.
The vibe is not the same, but Jonah is likeable, Felicia Day and Patton Oswalt are good as the Mads, and the movie selection is fantastic: Reptilicus? Munchie? The Christmas Dragon? Every film is a magnificent slice of different B-movie territory.
I know why it apologizes, but the fact that it does is offensive. It feels like mockery. Humans apologize because (ideally) they learned that their actions have caused suffering to others, and they feel bad about that and want to avoid causing the same suffering in the future. This simulacrum of an apology is just pattern matching. It feels manipulative.
reply