> Now the only "correct" way is a slew of media queries to set some designer's idea of the font for every possible viewport size.
Nested H1s was never semantically correct in the first place, at least for accessibility purposes.
You can do flexible sizes without media queries (eg, viewport size units + clamp). Designers generally understand the web pretty well these days.
I only see one situation where people might have depended on these styles, but it's a big one - anywhere that you output the plain HTML of a "rich text" component from a CMS or whatever. There, if the stakes are low, it might not have been a big deal to just let the browser do it and headings might look too big sometimes now.
> My partner works in a CMS all day at work. Every change she makes is pushed directly to production. There's no review process. No staging. No testing. No change control or rollback. If anyone messes something up, they get blamed for "taking down the app". As a software engineer, I look on in horror.
Fwiw that just sounds like an immature CMS - I've seen review/approval workflows, branches, preview environments etc in more than one CMS. I take your overall point but maybe your partner doesn't have to live this way.
> I take your overall point but maybe your partner doesn't have to live this way.
I agree - but if a review system exists in the product, she's never seen it. They don't even have a staging system for testing changes. Its wild.
And for context, she works at a large organisation that's a household name here in Australia. This is a large organisation thats been around for well over 50 years. They have an engineering team and thousands of employees.
I don't know if the software is bad or if its misconfigured. But the status quo outside of our industry is jaw-droppingly terrible.
what are you attempting to achieve with this idea? what kind of foothold? ideas are everywhere, they are cheap. the idea plus the execution, timing, marketing, and approach are all factors in something being successful. maybe you are thinking you need to make a startup or something to be successful.
i understand the feeling you have a little bit, but agree with the others that you don't need to despair too much about the industry, there is still a great need (and will be) for humans to understand the systems we are using and be able to get in the weeds to solve problems.
totally agree we might need less people writing/wrangling code, and it might put downward pressure on salaries... on the other hand, there might be upward pressure on salaries as developers will have a higher output and the ROI for hiring an effective developer in this environment will go up. especially when production is on fire, the AI that wrote the code that is on fire might not be the best source of how to solve it.
to me this is all basically a big unknown, without substantial reason to panic though, even if it feels overwhelming and hopeless from a certain perspective at the start of a career. currently a lot of development feels pretty sluggish to me, we fight with build tools and multiple languages and eke out these incremental improvements - if developers can work much much faster, that's great, but then we hit a limit to like... OK we need to let the product changes "settle" for a while and get user feedback about the changes, we can't actually ship 14 major product updates in a week because users will have no idea what the fuck is happening. but maybe we can do more advanced things with rapid split testing and automated success metrics to deploy pages that "self-optimize" or something, and there might be new second and third order ideas that come from this where it takes a human to manage and direct and build and solve things at that level.
I dunno, a job? I don't think one other person's idea is enough.
> ideas are everywhere, they are cheap. the idea plus the execution, timing, marketing, and approach are all factors in something being successful
And water is everywhere but you need a boat to get across it. I don't think I have a boat. I don't know if I can build one. I don't know if anyone will let me on their boat. s/boat/idea generation/g.
can you describe how any idea of this form connects to a job? I think what I'm saying is you don't need any "idea" - it's enough to have skills. You might be overestimating the bar you need to it or what it takes to get jobs in general.
The only thing I think that makes my resume as a student appealing is having real-world projects that show I can meaningfully develop. I'd need similar for GenAI, I'd imagine.
Bulk orders would be great. I just sent you one of my kid starting to crawl, it'll be a birthday gift for my wife. These would make great gifts in general - if you end up doing any more personalization like names embossed on covers or something, you can probably double the price.
The Getting Started docs recommend against using vanilla React and nudge you towards NextJS and similar frameworks because you're gonna end up needing that stuff eventually https://react.dev/learn/start-a-new-react-project
So new projects have to actively not follow the recommended approach in the docs if they want to use vanilla React.
What's described in the article is the perception of simplicity from a user perspective. The relationship with the car is simple. The surface area the user interfaces with for common tasks is simple. The overall concept the user has in their mind of how to operate a car is simple.
This user experience is the result of all the hard work done by the thousands of engineers and others involved. You seem offended on their behalf, but what the article is doing is actually praising their success. It doesn't describe anything about the internals of the car or the work done to design it, only the final _feature set_.
IMO this is just marketing content. A company wants to distinguish itself by claiming to offer a small, high-quality and easy-to-understand feature set that matters to a certain customers, instead of trading more functionality on paper for less "simplicity".
It might be true that they've found the exact right balance for their market. Or maybe they have constraints that prevent them from developing a broader range of features in parallel and that this is just spin.
I think it's not really about cars, is all I'm saying. The car is just a throwaway metaphor, and not a really great one.
Nested H1s was never semantically correct in the first place, at least for accessibility purposes.
You can do flexible sizes without media queries (eg, viewport size units + clamp). Designers generally understand the web pretty well these days.
I only see one situation where people might have depended on these styles, but it's a big one - anywhere that you output the plain HTML of a "rich text" component from a CMS or whatever. There, if the stakes are low, it might not have been a big deal to just let the browser do it and headings might look too big sometimes now.