Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rangerpolitic's comments login

You could actually do that with XHTML, and it was perfectly valid.


It's easy to use. It's not easy to use well.


> HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is a simple markup system used to create hypertext documents that are portable from one platform to another.

Source: The HTML 3 Specification.

https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/intro.html


https://tailwindcss.com/docs/utility-first/

You could always use a little classname vomit to go with your div soup.

The problem is that "modern" development has misplaced importance. It's become an incredibly selfish practice. There is more concern placed for the developers than the users.


The new approaches to HTML/CSS run directly counter to the specs sometimes.

Take Bulma for example. They provide styles for titles and subtitles, but their examples use h1 elements.

See: https://bulma.io/documentation/elements/title/

Why is that a problem?

This is explicitly addressed in the HTML 5.2 specification.

> h1–h6 elements must not be used to markup subheadings, subtitles, alternative titles and taglines unless intended to be the heading for a new section or subsection.

See: https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sections.html#headings-and-sect...

As the author suggests, they don't understand the tools they're using.


I'm not a fan of bulma, but that is not a valid complaint. If you give a `h3` the class `title is-1` it will look like their example `h1`. If you add a `h1` without any classes it won't even have any of the styling of `title is-1` unless you add the classes.

If anything they are purposely decoupling the styling from the semantics to make it more obvious which one you are choosing (although the example could make this more clear).


Or perhaps the spec is out of touch with reality...


To help people understand low blood sugar episodes, I think it's good to watch these three videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC_0CI9jV6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv4HIci1Qtc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TidRyyrTz4k


One thing I forgot was a Glucagon injection to revive someone who has passed out.


Yes, but generally you're not going to be injecting yourself with glucagon, as if you're lucid enough to do that, you're lucid enough to eat/drink some carbs.



Unfortunately for people who never switched to the subscription model, the CS6 updates stopped at 13.0.6.

You need 13.1 to launch in 64-bit, which is only available to CC subscription holders.

Edit: it seems that at one time it was possible for non-CC license holders to upgrade to 13.1 but it doesn't work anymore.


The linked source is directly from Adobe and directly contradicts the claim that "you need 13.1 to launch in 64-bit."

The source says:

> Photoshop CS6 and CC only install a 64-bit version on Mac OS.

Further, it says:

> Photoshop CS5 installs a version that can launch in either 32 bit or 64 bit when you install on a 64-bit version of Mac OS (Mac OS X 10.5 or later).

If CS5 install can launch in 64-bit, it wouldn't make sense for CS6 to be 32-bit only from the first version.

Even further, I know from personal experience that your claim is highly unlikely. This is a screenshot of Photoshop CS5 (12.0.4) running in 64-bit on my machine (High Sierra). Noticed it says "12.0.4 x64."

https://imgur.com/a/nCTghcy

I am not sure of the source of your information, but it's simply incorrect.

Edit: This is another article directly from Adobe.

It says:

> On Windows, both Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended have the option to run natively in either 32-bit or 64-bit editions. On Macintosh, only a 64-bit edition is available.

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/release-note/release-notes...


I don’t know what to tell you. Every time I launch CS6 on my Mac it tells me that it won’t run on Catalina.

I have no reason to believe that’s not true.

I think it’s quite possible that when Adobe says “64-bit” they’re not saying exactly the same thing that Apple means. I’m no expert with macho binaries and MacOS library linking.


This is a non-starter until hate is unambiguously defined.


Unambiguous definitions do not exist outside of mathematics. Furthermore, modern fascist communication strategies rely on existing within this ambiguity.


What constitutes hate?

Should people be permitted to use the word "marijuana" on YouTube? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igtLqhX4BCA

Should people be permitted to use the "okay" gesture in videos? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwJgr-4j14E

Should people be permitted to use a swastika in videos? See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Contemporary_use

It seems the fascists are already taking advantage of the ambiguity.


There needs to be a hard rule about this.

Don't mess with scroll. You will always get it wrong.


When you have the power to write the rules, you can break the rules. Google is too powerful.


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: