I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
It's been used to criticize anyone who rejects new technology, but it's just a funny quote that has some truth to it.
As I've hit age defined in 3, some of it is also "Anything invented after you're thirty-five is mostly same stuff you had before but upgraded. You are confused why everyone is losing their minds over it."
>mostly same stuff you had before but upgraded. You are confused why everyone is losing their minds over it
That's a good way of thinking about this. [Showing my age here], I remember being unfazed about the web in the mid 90s, thinking to myself "I already have Encarta which does hypertext with multimedia so well, why do I need this new thing populated by random people".
But of course the web did have a lot to offer. I suppose I keep coming back to "Quantity has a quality all its own" - sometimes even a relatively small upgrade makes an existing solution suddenly accessible to more people and a viable solution to more problems.
One of the things I'll never understand was why the attacker was replaying my traffic? They were clearly in my network and could access everything without being detected, why replay all the HTTP requests? So odd.
I was thinking about this while reading. My guess is that the vulnerability was limited to reading incoming requests (to the modem) or something along those lines, not full control of the network. Replaying the requests is a good way to get both ends of the traffic if you can only access one. For instance, a login + password being authenticated. Just a thought!
EDIT: I'd be hard-pressed to know how one could exploit this, given TLS would encrypt the requests. Maybe they're counting on using badly encrypted requests, encrypted with e.g. TLSv1.0?
You maintain an evacuation pod for as long as you can to survive the small journey (I think it can take as much as 30 minutes?) between the ship you're escaping and safety.
Opening the website with Firefox 123.0.1 on Windows 10 x64, the webpage slowed my browser to a crawl. After a quick look into it, it seems it didn't play well with the Angular Devtools extension[1]; you might want to look into it.
This was cool, but the best thing was the dedicated transition guide from LaTeX to Typst[1].
The bottom section especially, which is a list of Typst's shortcomings compared to LaTeX. This helped a lot when actually choosing this over Overleaf for the last writing project I had.
- What exactly do you mean by "Semantic CSS"? I've never heard this terminology before (might just be OOTL). I get the parallel between this and Semantic HTML, but I guess it's not as clear what it is supposed to mean for a styling language to me. Is it just native CSS (or "pure" CSS)? At least, as a result, I have no idea what this means, or by what measures you decided what constitutes "semantics" in Tailwind's CSS:
The most surprising thing is that Tailwind uses more global/semantic CSS than the semantic approach itself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- A small nitpick, maybe: could you somehow replace the top links to the two versions you compare with actual HTML links instead of JS events? This prevents middle-clicking and the location is replaced so it's tough to compare the two sites while reading your article. I have to click on your link, copy the url, and open that in a new tab. At least, opening the page in a new tab would be nice.
Thanks! Semantic CSS describes an elements meaning clearly: like <form> , <table>, or <div class="gallery">. Tailwind is non-semantic because you cannot say what the element does, like for example:
