That's assuming all people want to live like that. I wouldn't know what do do with that much space, and I hate having to drive anywhere. Give me decent public transportation and access to world-class restaurants over a house and a yard and a car any day.
> > Are you suggesting that it's reasonable for people from less-affluent backgrounds to have to spend their entire twenties working their way through school while the more affluent finish at 22?
> Yes.
Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?
> Why? What positive economic impact does this have? How can you justify 4+ years of lost positive contribution by these individuals to the economy? How is that economically efficient? What metrics are you basing your reasoning on?
Spending 10 years to get a degree versus 4 if you come from a privileged enough background isn't horrendous, especially when the person is working the entire 10 years to help get through the degree (probably close to break even vs going to to educational debt).
Would it be better if they finished in 4 and were able to potentially start earning more money earlier? Of course. But I feel it is completely reasonable for someone who is less-affluent to work hard for 10 years to make their life better if they choose to follow that path. That is what I meant by my statement, not that it's the best path or the most fair path, but it is a path that can be successfully achieved by many (and probably rewarding in many ways that the more affluent will not experience).
The difference being that large bureaucratic organizations need an army of lawyers to approve the use of open source libraries, and using a common license that is already understood (e.g. CC0) will result in a far smoother experience when the developers in that organization try to use anything to make their miserable lives a touch nicer.
source: I have formerly lead one of the described miserable lives.
> Cause you've got a web browser that was designed to view pages of linked information that has now been pressed into service as a ad-hoc run-time for building applications
At this point, this is argument is 100% false. Browsers of today aren't the browsers of the 90s. Chrome came out in 2008 and has ALWAYS been designed to run applications, and an entire operating (ChromeOS) is based on the idea that the browser isn't just a system built for viewing linked documents, but a valid application platform.
Just as I can not rip my bleeding eyes away from Honey Boo Boo, I can't not ask how you got 20K lines of CSS. Families live under the covers of ~5-6K of CSS. Major click bait sites exist with 10-15K of CSS. Help all of us here. You only have 6 lines of HTML and the 20K of CSS does all the work?!? I feel the iterwebtubes are doomed.
It's true. sassc(1) is a great step forward in terms of speed.
That said, Sass encourages practices that I consider bad. Nesting, @extend, etc.
Sass's design also makes it difficult to implement a basic feature like grouping all media queries for a single output. Check this issue from 2011: https://github.com/sass/sass/issues/116
Most importantly: it's very easy to end up with a huge CSS file that can't be compressed, and it makes everything more complicated.
Representing hierarchy in the class name makes the output shorter, in most cases, and makes the HTML and CSS code easier to understand. For instance, when you see <div class=title>, you need to go up to find context to understand what that "title" class is. If you have <div class=widget-title>, that's much better. Let alone that generic ("title") classes can lead to problems with conflicting rules depending on their specificity.
By the way, classes at the top level are faster to parse and apply.
That's actually where I want to take this, I'm thinking a wind speed sensor to recognize if it's on/off and a temperature sensor to turn it on/off automatically.
While I appreciate another look at React, I have to disagree with the article's conclusion that React is "objectively better" than other frameworks. The summary article of the story is basically "we completely re-architected our application and things are better now". There's nothing in Backbone that makes you construct the initial architecture on display, and you can use Backbone to build the final architecture as well. So, moral of the story: re-architecting an application you know more about than you did at the beginning is probably a good thing.
Small daily doses of antibiotics act as a growth stimulant for animals. Bigger animals = more money, and there aren't any incentives in place to prevent farmers from killing the effectiveness of antibiotics.
