Maybe the "solution with the lowest Kolmogorov complexity".
In a sibling comment, I replied that usually a repeating pattern can also be applied, but that one usually requires storing the n-sequence, rarely making it the shortest encodable rule.
The implementation details don't matter. LLMs not being able to properly reason though is a fundamental limitation and no amount of re-running will help.
There is no universally correct layouting. I for one absolutely detest epub versions of scientific books. Even if they are the official variant and not a generated one from some other format that understandably sucks, diagrams will be all around and I have to go back and forth and lose context. PDFs for all their shortcomings are a godsend and they do their single job perfectly. I much rather zoom in on my phone to a paragraph than look at a badly placed diagram taking up half a page in an unrelated context.
It’s also the concatenation of two, extremely common syllables, so purely by chance one is ought to hit them. Like, where I’m from its the name of a margarine brand - is it also misappropriating?
Your “semantic” CSS depends on your HTML structure. Tailwind’s HTML depends on a fixed set of CSS styles. None is any more coupled than the other, it’s just that the direction of the dependence is different.
Depending on what is expected to change more, both can be a valid approach: e.g. for a blog post that only uses heading, emphasis, link, styling it from CSS alone is definitely the best choice (that’s what it was developed for). But I would argue, most real-world web applications see more HTML-changes, and thus the other direction may make more sense.
Tailwind is not worse in this case either, and one might argue the “cascading” part of CSS is useless on such a local scope.
Also, tailwind gives you a pragmatic, limited selection of sizes, colors, etc, which is a very good basis for designing. (You shouldn’t be using a new px value for everything, they should come from a small custom-chosen set)
So what does it mean? You want the structure of your HTML to say the browser, that here is anything? Does your designer just give you a design with a huge blank rectangle in the middle? When does it ever make sense?
Isn’t it much more meaningful to create a <gallery> component (it can be done through a template-engine, react, whatever, that’s another point).
I mean, sure, we could just program with void pointers everywhere, but is it really a good idea?
Or worse, it breaks at a completely different site you didn’t even touch, won’t notice and might also pass through manual testing (if that’s even a thing at your place), and end up in prod. Sure, there are AI-based testing tools that check for frontend changes, but let’s be honest, they are very rarely used, if at all.
While Pipewire is certainly better than Pulseaudio, let’s not forget that the latter actually surfaced the millions of bugs in sound drivers by simply using them in a more advanced way than just putting out audio, so while it was buggy initially, most of those stem from a layer below.
Systemd and Wayland actually solve a real problem, and they do it well. (And I agree that they have a terribly loud and more often than not technically unfound criticism going on in each such thread)
In case of Flatpak we have a so so much better solution in the linux space (nix) that I feel that it is blindly going in the wrong direction. Package management is hard, but it finally has a solution. One might disagree with the implementation of Nix, but the idea is sound, and this is the first thing ever that doesn’t just push it a layer down, but actually solves the problem. The linux world should definitely ride this moment similarly to git’s success back then.
Nix, NixOS. It has firefox LTS and nightly, and the other two packaged as well. You can in fact freely go back and install any combination of versions/configurations for each of these, even multiple times.
Flatpak mixes up packaging and sandboxing, these two imo should not be that close coupled. Especially that it doesn’t even solve the former properly (not sure about the latter).
I have no qualms one way or another, but afaik conductivity in small samples is insanely hard to properly measure even when the synthesis process is more deterministic/efficient.
I am perfectly capable of managing, simply unknowns, it doesn’t have to have an actual boolean value. Treating it as bullshit is not the correct approach - sure, there is a healthy amount of skepticism, realism to have, but while RTSC is a too nice to be true goal, it is not fundamentally against any known laws, I would retain my bullshit behavior to faster than light travel, the daily tesla-free-energy-for-the-world, etc. kind of low-effort ones, and even in their case would hold a tiny 0.001% chance of my skepticism being wrong.
Also, if anything this black-and-white view of the world is responsible for the bad outcomes associated with optimism in hyped science. If we could distance ourselves from the binary result/truth and simply engage with the topic without that weight, we would have much more productive discussions.
In a sibling comment, I replied that usually a repeating pattern can also be applied, but that one usually requires storing the n-sequence, rarely making it the shortest encodable rule.