The section “Utility Classes: Yes, They Still Exist” is unfair in its comparison of Tailwind with pure CSS. It doesn’t take into account Tailwind’s recommendation in https://tailwindcss.com/docs/styling-with-utility-classes#us... that “if you need to reuse some styles across multiple files, the best strategy is to create a component” in your front-end framework or templating language. So its example of a “typical Tailwind component” is incomplete.

A better comparison would use, for example, a React component:

  function Button({ children }) {
    return (
      <button
        className="inline-flex items-center gap-2 px-4 py-2 rounded-full
                   border border-gray-300 bg-white text-gray-900
                   hover:bg-gray-50 focus:ring-2 focus:ring-blue-500"
      >
        {children}
      </button>
    );
  }
  
  // Usage:
  <Button>Save</Button>

This would counter all of the article’s arguments in favor of pure CSS. If the website used a `Button` component like this, it would also be true that the “HTML stays readable”, that “changes cascade”, that “variants compose”, and that “media queries live with components”.

A better argument against Tailwind would be the added complexity of having a build system and a front-end framework or templating language, if your project doesn’t already have those for other reasons.

(adapted from my better-formatted comment at https://lobste.rs/c/oznzzj)

It’s not just on mobile – PC Gamer’s website does that on desktop too. Even with uBlock Origin. :(

standardly’s comment has only hyphens, not em dashes. Em dashes are much longer: - vs. —

Jujutsu’s changelog (https://jj-vcs.github.io/jj/latest/changelog/) goes all the way back to 2022 and shows there was a release as recently as two weeks ago. I don’t see why the maintainers would stop at this point.

Also, from Jujutsu’s README (https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj#mandatory-google-disclaimer):

> I (Martin von Zweigbergk, martinvonz@google.com) started Jujutsu as a hobby project in late 2019, and it has evolved into my full-time project at Google, with several other Googlers (now) assisting development in various capacities.

Wow, 2022? Such age, many longevity.

I made the “sit” gloss long: “to rest your body on your bum (while your bum is on a thing such as a chair or the ground) while your back is up”.

I don’t see anything specifically about boyhood or childhood on that page or on the rest of that sub-Reddit’s wiki. Do you have a more precise link?

Context: the Online Safety Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023) is a law of the United Kingdom. Previous discussion on Hacker News: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

> the two words do not sound even remotely the same

Pronounced correctly, “segue” sounds just like “Segway” – not like “seg-oo”, as you might have assumed.

TIL, thanks! You are right, that I assumed it would be like "seg-oo".

An excellent example of why dash length matters. Because of the wrong usage of ‘—’ and ‘-’, it took me 10 more seconds of rereading and re-parsing your comment to understand what that first sentence meant.

I see what you did in the second paragraph too. It’s another example of “a millimeter of difference in the length of a line” mattering in that it looks weird, though it’s not much harder to read.

The undotted small "i" character comes from the modern Turkish alphabet. It's perhaps only slightly disorienting for an English reader to slightly shorten some letters that are just lines in a sans-serif font. In Turkish though, a millimeter of line can make an entirely different letter.

Being able to render a variety of line lengths with different meanings is a cool and useful thing.

That’s a misreading of the phrase “proportion of YES votes”. If 30% of judges vote YES, then only 30% – not 100% – of the prediction’s market cap is awarded to those who bet YES. The remaining 70% of the market cap is awarded to those who bet NO.

The market correctly rewards those who bet NO in such a case. Therefore, bettors have no reason to bet YES if they really think NO.