This is all the CSS needed to render almost the entire app from mobile to desktop widths, in both light and night themes. The "utility CSS" is generated by a framework and not something engineers have to be concerned with when writing components.
What is it even supposed to convey? It seems that often advertising and marketing forget that they are supposed to, you know, communicate something to someone.
Well, you can see how it works "under the hood"... not being ashamed of what they are/their works. I kinda understand the rationale for that picture (I'm wondering how hard it would be to draw "open standard" in a pictionary game)
Hey. I work at Twitter. I think that at certain companies the "front-end" role is not as specialized as assumed, and you tend to interview for a specific team that has an opening, rather than for a generic position among a hoard of similar developers.
Having said that, I'm surprised there was only one CSS question, and the suggestion to combine questions with front-end specific knowledge might be a good way to ease into the interview.
FYI, the keyboard shortcuts on http://littleoutliner.com/ seem to prevent me from using cmd+opt+I or cmd+opt+U when the window has focus. cmd+opt+J works though.
From what I understand, higher oxygen levels were only linked to large invertebrates, not dinosaurs:
Some paleontologists speculated that oxygen might be behind the evolution of huge dinosaurs, too, but the hypothesis has been totally undermined by evidence from the geological record and dinosaur anatomy. Geochemical evidence has shown that Jurassic and Cretaceous air contained about as much oxygen as today, if not a little less. More than that, the dinosaurs did not need increased oxygen to adequately nourish their bodies.
As part of their respiratory system, sauropods had a complex network of air sacs that gave them two advantages.
Oxygen becomes toxic to humans at higher partial pressures. (That is already a concern to divers.)
I do not have the numbers in my head to tell whether dinosaur-era levels of oxygen would be enough to cause problems. And in any case, the oxygen level would take probably at least a few hundred years to rise.
Fun fact: The rate of oxygen production by plants is big enough to re-oxygenize the atmosphere to current levels in around 2000 years, should all oxygen be wiped off the planet. (Assuming everything else stays the same, including CO2 is kept at current levels.)
The analogies and conclusions are based on false assumptions about the driving forces and consequences of the "machine revolution". You can expect fewer jobs and the accumulation of more wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer people as a result of increased automation and the creation of more efficient "digital production lines".
Hi, I'm part of the team working on HTML5 Boilerplate.
As this featured project is, in some way, defining itself relative to what it believes HTML5 Boilerplate is and should be, I'm going to chime in with some thoughts.
If someone wants to create a new project after their concerns have not been shared by others maintaining a large, existing, community project (e.g., how Lo-Dash came to be) then that's fair enough. But I'm always disappointing to see people do so before raising their concerns and making their arguments. It would avoid the repetition of errors and discussions that have been addressed previously. We could also work together to adapt HTML5 Boilerplate if there is a good case to do so.
Once-upon-a-time, I didn't appreciate the work and community knowledge that went into HTML5 Boilerplate. However, after I started to open issues against the repo and contribute to the project, I realised that it has always been very open to contributions and changes of direction. I had significantly underestimated how much thought and combined knowledge was going into the project, and how much it was constantly evolving.
It's hard to design a useful starting template that's clear and friendly enough for newcomers, documented enough for explorers, and svelte enough for experienced developers. We're always trying to figure out the best way to present the value of the project while not scaring away too many people. Hopefully, we're doing a decent job of balancing those concerns and making people feel welcome in the discussions.
I hope that developers will continue to work with -- and look to join -- the people developing HTML5 Boilerplate at any given time. If you think something is missing or should be removed, make the case for it. We listen and learn; we're constantly evolving the project.
There's no reason to be bothered by people creating a project in their own vision. No one owes HTML5 Boilerplate anything. FWIW, I'd never heard of it before today, and it looks pretty cool.
I haven't had the experience that HTML is harder to maintain if you use classes more liberally. What this approaches forces you to do is: write or edit CSS every time you want a new combination of existing traits...which isn't ideal either.
The post also suggests that certain class names are "unsemantic", when they obviously aren't. They just have different meaning to the sorts of class names the author is advocating.
Right, I addressed that in the post. They are "non-semantic" as far as people normally apply the word "semantic" to HTML. You might say that they are still semantic, fine. But you'd be hard pressed to argue that they are different than classes like `.dropdown` or `.menu`, and that difference makes them _much_ more susceptible to change. Which means if you're littering your markup with those classes, you will have to sync those changes all over the place.
Yes there are still changes to make (there always will be), but with the OOSass approach you're doing it in a single place. Want all of your statuses to be `.media` modules? One place. Not n places. Moving the work from the n-side to the 1-side is the mark of a good abstraction.
I've been working on my own framework for the last several months and I've been back and forth a bit on this issue. On the one hand I strongly believe that 1.) writing and editing markup is easier than writing CSS (browser inconstancies, context switching), and 2.) your coworkers are probably a lot more proficient with HTML than CSS. On the other, when you start getting class attributes like "col-12 secondary-panel rounded-top inner-shadow pam" you may have gone off the rails a bit. I guess it depends on where you want the mess to be. One argument that keeps me coming back to the multiple class names camp is that keeping your classes semantic and extending your patterns requires writing more Sass every time you add new content, where going nuts with class names doesn't. I love being able to add a new component to the app without having to open up a single stylesheet. We also have trouble running into the 4095 selector limit in IE8 when we package everything, so every extra class we can shave off helps (although in this specific case the problem is more with having a Sass codebase that has been rode over roughshod by five+ developers for the last year).
This is all the CSS needed to render almost the entire app from mobile to desktop widths, in both light and night themes. The "utility CSS" is generated by a framework and not something engineers have to be concerned with when writing components.