> CSS also sucks because 10px isn't 10 pixels, 10cm isn't 10 centimeters, and 50% isn't 50% of the screen.

This really isn't about CSS, it's about screen hardware - and the thousands of constantly evolving products in the market.

With the actual layout models, I see it more of an evolution thing. For someone starting on CSS today, you do not have to learn all 8 now if you don't want to, just master the grid. It was designed to be the last one to rule them all.

HTML (Hyper-Text Markup Language) is a specific kind programming language, a markup language. It is nowhere close to a general purpose (Turing complete) programming language. Maybe you meant the web stack (HTML, JavaScript, CSS)?

It's a (computer) language, it is also a formal language. A programming language is a language in which you can write programs, which are descriptions of algorithms. You don't describe algorithms in HTML, hence it is not a programming language.

Thats correct. Computer language is the top category. Markup and Programming languages are subcategories.

HTML5 refers specifically to the latest, living version of HTML, the markup language. CSS and JavaScript have their own specifications, and version numbers. The term your looking for is the web platform [1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_platform

On a technical forum in a post that contains, both the words "CSS" and "HTML"? Sorry, but no "HTML5" refers to the version 5 of the Hypertext Markup Language.

HTML5 is the HTML of today, that's what I meant originally. I'm not sure what you're afraid of, nobody is attacking you, I'm simply explaining what I had in mind, and why it's not unreasonable to use words in a more inclusive, close to contemporary practice meaning.

The fact is, JavaScript is ubiquitous in web programing and the web is unthinkable without it, it's so pervasive on the front end that it's been repurposed for backend use precisely because it makes a lot of sense to use one programming language for one project. Pure HTML is unsuitable for backend use and it sticks like a sore thumb in the front end.

Younger developers are likely missing on the history of the entire web endeavor but in order to get a feel for it, I'd recommend to focus on practical meaning rather than on trivial semantics.

The big point I was driving at is this: The damage has been done, instead of a clean rendering API we've got this hybrid monstrosity which locked us to a couple / triple browser rendering engines which, due to cutesy BS, are complex beyond comprehension, beyond security analysis or normal competition. This is what an obsession with fancy names leads to.

nah. the technical semantics is absolutely the point when we're talking about code. HTML is thing distinct from javascript and CSS and it's very useful to be precise about it in our context.

> If you like programming exclusively with globals and no warning when you have conflicting variable names

Tailwind is built on top of CSS. It is basically a library of hundreds of tiny "global", documented CSS classes.

> It's a source of stress to add a class to the system with a simple, short and readable name and have to worry it is used someplace else.

That is the whole point of CSS classes: re-use. A CSS class is not meant to be used in only one very specific place. For that, you can select an element's ID or an elements HTML path, to style just that one thing.

> Being an insane brand means literally nothing if people can trivially switch to competitors, which they can.

Logically speaking, yes it is easy to switch between OAI and Gemini, or Coke and Pepsi. But brand loyalty is more about emotions (comfort, familiarity,..) rather logical reasoning.

Completely agree. Readability is actually in the word itself read + ability. The ability of both the code and the reader.

> Rust's rich type system and ownership model will guarantee me memory-safety and thread-safety, which eliminate many classes of bugs at compile-time.

With PHP, you don't have to worry about compile-time bugs, because there is no compile time.

…and instead you get runtime bugs which is somehow better?

you also get runtime bugs with rust and everything else, so i just don't get the "somehow better" line of comparison

The idea is that if something would have been a compile-time error (ex: using a method that doesn’t exist), but you don’t see that compile error because you don’t have a compiler, the error is still there. It’s just that you won’t see it until the associated code happens to run. Essentially the compiler can catch whole classes of bugs early on. Just because it’s annoying to be told your code has bugs doesn’t make that better than having bugs and just not being told.

16 billion passwords from Apple, Facebook, Google and more leaked. Why has no one heard of it?

Looks like we did hear about it back in January and March.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44322961

Because it's apparently unconfirmed and was first reported on some truly sketchy sites. There hasn't been a peep (yet) from the companies affected.

You have coding skills. Some marketing and video production skills. Self discipline and persistence. The time to spend 18hr days on a project. Why look for employment? Start your own business.

are you some kind of fortune teller!? haha. so that's so funny you say that because that, too, is a big part of the story. actually I was gearing up to do exactly that - but everything blew up in my face and this Doom project was, in many ways, my way of picking up the pieces from the rubble.

there's another reason, which is that I really get a lot of energy from working with other people. it makes me really happy. and right now especially I really love the people I work with. I learned this lesson the hard way in my stint contracting - because the inter-personal relationships are very different when you're there one day and gone the next (as a contractor).