161–170 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just you. The site has poor contrast ratio - fails all accessibility guidelines for text contrast ratio requirements.
Really? Firefox says the contrast ratios meet WCAG AA. For me, the main problem is the font weight. I'm sure it looks better on high-density displays, but it is way too thin to read comfortably at a regular pixel density.
I use a tool called CCA and it takes font size into consideration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this news at this point? If you started your career in the last 5-10 years then yes, it might be news. An entire generation of web developers has been trained to think that every app big and small needs to be a convoluted SPA. The results are a disaster.
You think they would have discovered Flask or something similar just out of personal curiosity.
When I started my first Node/Express project I picked pug too but quickly realized it was too removed from vanilla HTML I was seeing in the books/MDN and switched to Handlebars. Immediately discovered that Handlebars didn’t have a built in support for something fairly basic I needed and I either had to roll my own extension to it or look for something else so I ended up switching yet again to EJS and I’m still using it a year later today. EJS is perfect if you want vanilla HTML + vanilla JS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a culture has been created where anything resembling server-side rendering (other than Node spitting out JSON) is legacy to be avoided ..... until of course the Javascript creates its own convoluted version of server-side rendering, which is revolutionary and the new hotness.
The main benefit to JS being used as a server side rendered and client side rendered language is that you have a lot more control over which parts you want on the server vs the client, and you can introduce hydration where needed. You technically could do that in PHP and other non JS languages but that's annoying because you'll be mixing multiple languages together and it would be more clunky. So yes, there is some "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most of this comes down to the fact that these bootcamps are there to freshly bake people to work on the latest shiny tech completely ignoring the basics of computer science. I, like yourself, was very lucky to attend a university course that gave me exactly those fundamentals.
Not always. The bootcamp I worked for did 2 months of pure HTML/CSS/JS and then did a personal project for another month of which students almost exclusively used HTML/CSS/JS, some did React. Only in the final week did I teach React. This was around 2017, most students didn't become React devs. Most students did end up in the JS ecosystem, but 30% did something else [1]. [1] When I say 30%, that's not an official sta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, yes. The conventional wisdom these days is to do everything in React (or something similarly bloated). Because, you know, users just love seeing a bunch of grey boxes shimmer and dance on a white background for several seconds before the magic really starts to happen. So any exercise which demonstrates that there just might be an alternative to this philosophy should be applauded.
I don’t think this is the “conventional wisdom”!
I ranted about this in another thread a few months ago and I stand by what I wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34857513
> I became a dev when everyone was hiring for React, so React is what I taught myself immediately after bootcamp in the scramble for a job A better education path (in a bootcamp, university, book, youtube, whatever) would start with the fundamentals and build it from the ground up... not the other way around. (I just realized how lucky I am for being taught in the best possible order, from the ground up... first the…
So the options are bootcamp or not. Not from the ground up or not. Bootcamps cater thst group. Ideally skilled, smart, willing to learn but on a tight schedule and in need of a job.
This also changed my mind a bit on how to think about bootcamps. They are a way to give people who couldn't afford a longer education on the discipline an entry point.
All the success or failure is still on the person, and there is a lot to learn, but I respect everyone going through the hard path.
About that Paperfuge analogy ... maybe I am stupid or overly skeptic but I haven't seen that paper wheel carry any samples in the video. If there was some solution to mount samples (symmetrically I'd guess) it would become quite dangerous to rotate them 120.000 rpm without any enclosure, right?
While the paperfuge is cool and may even reach higher RPM/G than some bench top ultracentrifuges, it cannot do so consistently.
Putting "Samples were centrifuged at whatever amount of G:s yours truly could crank out on a hand built paperfuge for a solid 10 minutes" in the materials and methods section doesn't exactly scream reproducible science.