> at $156B market cap someone sure is making money.

So 50x Pets.com or 2x Enron.

> judging a mega-corporation on lemonade-stand level accounting is a fool's errand.

Disagree. Unit economics matter and can help you cut through a lot of hype and nonsense. "Where's the money coming from?" is always a good question to ask. Sure, sometimes a megacorp loses money on each transaction and makes it up on float or whatever, but that's at least worth knowing if that's what's going on.

Agree due diligence is required. FTX, Theranos, Enron are a reality. But it’s also tempting to color the assessment with virtue.

Im morally against Meta but it’s the world’s greatest money printing machine ever conceived. To say they or Uber don’t make money would be too virtue-tainted.

What a pointlessly provocative and unproductive thing to say.

I am in the same boat as GP, and I wonder if it's one of the reasons I migrated hard to ebooks and online magazines/newspapers as soon as that became possible and never looked back.

There is no way to specify a good size in CSS - a size that looks good on current computers will be too big on old computers, and a size that looks good on old computers looks too small on current ones. Browsers and users are the ones who can fix this.

I think your knowledge of CSS might be outdated. What's wrong with the following CSS snippet for example?

    body {
      max-width: 70ch; /* Limits the text column to a comfortable reading width */
      margin: 0 auto;  /* Centers the text column on large screens */
      padding: 1.5rem; /* Prevents text from touching the edges on small/mobile screens */
      line-height: 1.6; /* Gives the lines room to breathe */
    }

As for font size, you can use

    font-size: 1rem;

to respect the browser's default font size.

> What's wrong with the following CSS snippet for example?

It doesn't achieve a reasonable readable font size which was presumably the goal. Your padding won't be the right size for all screens either. (And personally I hate excessive line height).

> respect the browser's default font size

The browser's defaults are also bad. But they shouldn't be. The browser is in a position to actually fix this; the webdev isn't.

> The browser's defaults are also bad.

What's bad about them? There is a sensible default and users (in particular those with poor eyesight) will adjust them to their needs.

Ignoring this default is presumptuous.

> What's bad about them? There is a sensible default and users (in particular those with poor eyesight) will adjust them to their needs.

16pt is a sensible default on some screens and very much not on others.

> users (in particular those with poor eyesight) will adjust them to their needs

In the real world they won't though, much as we might both wish otherwise.

Guess what: When you setup your smartphone, it asks you what font size you want. So it's unlikely to be 16pt for everyone.

>What's wrong with the following CSS snippet

The problem is you're imposing your own idiosyncratic preferences on strangers. Your "improvements" cost valuable screen space. I paid good money for my screen space and I don't appreciate designers unilaterally wasting it because they personally think it looks better. The decision of how much (if any) space to spend on padding should be made by the user.

The designers' job is good usability. Limiting line length is important, humans cannot deal well with extremely long lines of text. This is not a matter of taste.

Well, there are standards such as the WCAG 2.2 Guidelines.

There are also large-scale studies.

Btw, WCAG recommends 45–75 characters with a limit of 80 characters. Why not follow their recommendation?

Learn how to resize windows, multitasking, tiling, etc. I prefer to have one monitor in portrait but understand many don’t have or not able.

Useful things to know, but how do they undo a designer wasting my screen space? If you're going to tell me to learn something, it should be CSS. At least Firefox can still be configured to follow its traditional role as "user agent" and allow me to override the bad decisions of designers, by setting toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets and editing chrome/userContent.css . But it would be convenient if more people used the default CSS like danluu.com .

Not sure, as I don't have any wasted screen space, due to the techniques mentioned above. On really bad sites I try reader view first, View/Page Style/No Style (on Firefox) second, and if that doesn't work I close the tab. Pretty rare though.

A website should be readable, even if the browser is set to fullscreen. It could be that the user is on a kiosk system where she can't resize the window or doesn't want to, just to improve legibility.

Only any who hypocritically want protection for their own models (are there any?). The morality of scraping everyone is arguable; it's when you object to being scraped back that you reveal yourself as a scoundrel.

This isn't about the app being unfinished, it's about Google deliberately half-assing support for open standards. They want you to be stuck in their calendar ecosystem so they make sure there's more friction adding a calendar from outside than adding someone else's Google calendar.

> I literally can't imagine generating a script with an LLM without testing it at all.

Then you're extremely unimaginative as well as unusually fastidious.

Certainly someone - several someones - are generating lots of scripts and not testing them, given the PRs I'm seeing.

No, that is exactly GP's complaint. Their whole point is that OP has written things like "we throw everything at a model and hope it gives us what we imagined, without ever having to understand how any of it actually works" when the honest statement would be "I throw everything at a model and hope it gives me what I imagined, without ever having to understand how any of it actually works".

Yes I understand the complaint. It's just that "royal we" means something else.

No it doesn't. It comes from the Queen saying "We are not amused" to mean "I specifically am not amused".

It has other uses. But the point is that saying "we" when one is not, in fact, a sovereign, is extremely pretentious.

I'm pretty sure the author intended it as a regular "we".

There's also the wifely we, meaning "you", as in "we need to take out the trash."

My dad's reply to that was always, "We? What, do you have a mouse in your pocket?"

> "We? What, do you have a mouse in your pocket?"

Suggested response: “I do, but the poor thing is not strong enough. No no, I meant one of us needs to do it. Please do go ahead, if you don’t mind, as I’m a bit busy feeding the mouse.”

> IT projects that cost billions are incomprehensible to me, outside of frontier work

Getting a large bureaucracy to agree on a question where any answer will disadvantage some members of it is frontier work. No-one has a good general solution. Very few people even have approximate solutions for a few special cases.

> is there no space in the market for a good software consultancy? Or are they just outcompeted for getting the contract?

You can't grow big enough to bid on these big projects and stay good.

> Credit card entry, I think you should know a few basics like don't put it in MongoDB?? Or nah? It's just like any other user data?

> How about a background check - can anyone take a user-entered DL and randomly Google stuff to see what they find?

> Can I store your SSN in plain text in a text file? Why not?

You wouldn't be touching any of those unless you work for a handful of providers where that's their whole business. Usually you add the dependency, use their widget, and that's it.