I find ST and the SFTP plugin (paid) a killer workflow combo, super useful for updating WordPress sites.
Update your file locally, hit the shortcut to upload, done. I find this experience superior to editing directly on the external file as I may want to save but not necessarily commit that change. And for smaller projects you are the only developer on, git can be overkill.
I appreciate there are people who find Tailwind useful and are productive with it, but it has this clean yet generic look that I now see everywhere, because Tailwind is now everywhere.
This is conflating Tailwind and TailwindUI/shadcn/etc.
For the most part, Tailwind offers no more influence over style than normal CSS (okay, there's some exceptions... things like shadows are a bit more standardized, and indigo has gotten outside influence on color palettes as of late).
Tailwind gives you sensible defaults, but doesn't really influence your design too much. People just tend to design the sites a certain way. Especially, with ShadCn.
I feel like that's a good thing, because Tailwind's options are well-thought and work well.
I like to think of it in the same way as Inter being the new Helvetica when it comes to choosing a font for a website: lots of people do it, and it looks great, so why not?
I heard this comment about Bootstrap back this in the day but none of my Bootstrap sites looked like each other. Bootstrap saved me a lot of time because it had a lot of utility classes (like Tailwind way before Tailwind) and it never enforced a certain look.
You just loaded the classes that you wanted (unless you didn’t download the source Sass files, but that would have been silly).
My take on this problem is, good UI frameworks (i.e. tailwind + components) are still rare. So the vast majority of projects use a very small number of them. If 4-5 new quality UI projects popped up, especially if they departed more in their styling, we'd see more diversity.
I've come to realize with design, like much creative work, the trends really do seem to be set by a shockingly small number of people. I wish more people realized this, because I feel there are talented individuals out there not making their own, thinking they'll never be heard. But I suspect some of those people would be unlocking new UI's for a large chunk of the web if they would give it a go.
Yes thank you billionaires, if you hadn't vacuumed the wealth of a nation this could have been a government agency success. Why should we all benefit when one man can?
Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Musk and Bezos have generated insane amounts of wealth for the American economy. They're not hoarding dollar bills in some vault like Scrooge McDuck lol.
No indeed, it is not a zero-sum game, billionaires like Musk and Bezos have more money than Scrooge McDuck [0], the cartoon version of Greed. While their share of the global wealth is increasing by each year
"The richest 1 percent grabbed nearly two-thirds of all new wealth worth $42 trillion created since 2020, almost twice as much money as the bottom 99 percent of the world’s population, reveals a new Oxfam report today." Jan 16, 2023 [1]
So? I don't think you are really making an argument. $42 trillion created, and by those same accounting rules they got the share that they created. There net worth is just the stock value x number of shares they have. Their wealth is directly correlated by how much value the market thinks their companies are worth.
I would disagree with some of your reasoning. Workers created the wealth, and by workers I mean everyone from delivery people, software developers, managers etc.
However, due to political decisions most if not all of that wealth is shared among people at the upper levels of the hierarchy, and third party investors.
It might not feel as a problem to you, but increasing inequality has negative consequences for society as a whole. It is well documented that more unequal societies have a higher prevalence of violence and theft, which might have direct consequences for you or your environment.
The sums spent on this are trivial to governments. California HSR costs much more than bringing a rocket to life. The annual cost of dialysis to the American government is many times what SpaceX or Blue Origin costs.
Any number of nations' governments could do this in a wealth perspective. And none have.
Of course they haven’t, how can they afford to compete with private companies? We’ve all decided that taxes are bad, there’s no money in a govt position.
They have a lot more money than private companies. California HSR alone costs ten times or more than the Starship program. Annually, the American government spends some three or four times as much as the Starship program on dialysis for 0.2% of the population. Money is in abundance for a government.
For those of us with zero interest in playing a console on the go I wish they would release a non-mobile version and put the money saved into beefier specs.
It’s more for playing in your room where you don’t have a TV, than necessarily on-the-go. Just how smartphones are nowadays used for gaming at home by the younger generation. You still don’t want to be tethered to a power outlet.
The beefier specs would be wasted though since game developers would still be primarily targeting the handheld (since that is still their main offering, so that's what most people have).
The one drawback of civil discourse is feeling the need to use diplomatic language, even when it's not deserved. "Polarizing" is a term too good for Musk.
Doubtful we could build it, get everyone signed up, rebuild audiences, and monetize it for the company and users and not be Meta or Musk before the 19th.
It's lower friction just to switch to something you already know.
Update your file locally, hit the shortcut to upload, done. I find this experience superior to editing directly on the external file as I may want to save but not necessarily commit that change. And for smaller projects you are the only developer on, git can be overkill.
reply