I think a lot of these kinds of studies are not really about objectively studying a phenomenon but trying to prove a predetermined point. The study is designed and adjusted until it proves what it should prove. Then it's wrapped in a nice news headline which goes away with all the details and subtleties and used for political or economic gain. Reproducing the results is not interesting and not funded. Other studies are then using these results as sources to stack the house of cards even higher. I think this does a lot of harm to science as a whole because a lot of people disregard all scientific results as a result.
It is interesting, but I really dislike the way it tries to bash every other tech in the blog post, on the homepage and in the docs itself. The tone is very confident, but it will put you open to a lot of scrutiny.
Instead it could really use a lot more explanation on how it works. If you make comparisons make sure they are fair. The image "JavaScript mixed together" and "Strict separation of concerns" is just comparing apples with oranges. Multiple times in the docs it compares a huge complicated JSX like component and replaces it with 3 lines of html and 3 lines of css. I don't believe that it does the same thing.
Some of the claims are strange. It praises standard HTML but apparently you have to use some custom Markdown syntax to write it. How does that add up? And on top of that it also introduces new syntax for loops and variables.
This could all work perfectly fine. But my suggestion would be to talk more about how it works and what are the advantages and less trying to bring down competitors. It could use less grand claims and focus more on what it really does.
In my scouts group we used to organize a father and son police, robber and fence game in the woods at night. Robbers had to transport logs to the fence to gain points. Every player had a string round their arm and you could wrestle the players from the other teams to get it. It was very cool to see the boys battle each other and see dads wrestling other dads, older brothers and scout leaders. Or sneaking in the dark with their dad carrying the logs. It was a real father and son bonding experience. Great memories.
It is just a delaying tactic. ASML is 5-10 years ahead in their technology so it will take a while for China to catch up. Which will grant the USA some extra time to build its own chip industry and not be dependent on two or three other countries.
It seems trying to solve the homeless drug addiction crisis is putting the cart before the horse. Why are there so many homeless drug users in the first place? Any real solution for the problem would be to prevent people from ending up like this.
If you fall out of the rat race in the US you are screwed. No job, no insurance, no health care, no house, no car followed by homelessness and drug use. After all that it would take an insane amount of effort to get you back up to the ladder.
I know socialism is the big scary word in the US, but socialist European countries mostly prevent people from falling down the ladder that far and fast and the amount of homeless and drug use is significantly lower over here.
In the end it turned out that common sense has always been right. The more sick you are the easier it is to spread and detect. The tests just detect and confirm the obvious.
Also mentioned in the article is that this company did know that about the toxic effects of these chemicals but just ignored it or kept it secret. They know it is toxic but still choose to dump it in the river because it below the limit or there is no limit.
AlphaStar or AlphaGo were trained on thousands of games and played hundreds of thousands of games to learn what works and what doesn't. This model is told the rules of the game and knows how to use the 4 basic inputs. I don't think it has any notion of strategy, good or bad moves.
But maybe with a feedback loop it will improve.
Pretty cool example though to see its limitations.
Besides that you need to predict where the next number can and should spawn. If you don't figure out the strategy for that you will never get a decent score.
Vanilla CSS, SCSS, BEM, Bootstrap, Styled Components, different kinds of CSS in JS solutions and I still prefer Tailwind over the other methodologies and libraries because I don't have to think about abstractions and naming things. Abstractions are huge foot gun in frontend development because it kills all flexibility.
With Styled Components or similar libraries you have to wrap all your components with all kinds of variants that inherit properties. Composition over inheritance is a huge benefit of Tailwind.
The big problem with CSS is the specificity and if you ever worked on a real big project with BEM or vanilla CSS/SASS it will eventually become a huge mess of specificity and more and more specific nesting of class selectors to override other styles that you don't want. With Tailwind you can just add exactly what you want, nothing more, nothing less.
Sure the html is "ugly" but that part is invisible.
It is also very likely your bundle size will be smaller because it only adds the CSS for the helpers that you really used.
Just my 2 cents I guess. People should use what they like.