dfabulich

I didn't say "easy" either, I said "straightforward hard work."

What you're doing is hard work, but it's way more straightforward than building out CSS Tricks.

You're a successful marathon runner. CSS Tricks will have to run a marathon with both legs tied together.

What makes your subject matter (LLMs) work is that it's a very fast moving topic, much faster moving than CSS, so people come to you for news.

Plus, it's difficult to test new models effectively, so people are looking for trusted names to do meta analysis, fast. Is the new OpenAI model better than Claude? Better how? Quality of output? Evaluated how? Even comparing prices can be difficult, as different models (at different settings) can generate different numbers of tokens (and different numbers of cached tokens) for the same tasks.

None of that applies to CSS Tricks.

CSS fundamentally can't move that fast, as long as changes in CSS require Apple, Google, and Mozilla to all agree on standards. Hardly anybody needs to know about the latest CSS news. Mostly you only need to know about Baseline Widely Available CSS features, which are at least 30 months old by definition. And when you do learn about new CSS features, it's usually pretty obvious (either to you or to an LLM) whether those new CSS features apply to something you're working on.

It's going to be very, very hard to keep CSS Tricks alive, even with a lot of hard work.

You're saying that like it's straightforward hard work. But that strategy has been on the decline for years, with no sign of reversing. High-value technical audiences aren't Googling for educational articles, videos, and courses. They're just asking LLMs, and getting answers. Sometimes the LLMs are searching the web, but LLMs approximately never click on the ads.

Agreed! And you aren't even restricted to currentScript; you can run arbitrary JS in an XML document, reformatting it however you like.

You can also style XML documents with CSS, like this:

    <link rel="stylesheet"
       href="style.css"
       xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" />

I'm looking as closely as I'm able, and I don't see what you mean. (I'm not a car guy, or a photo guy.) What do you mean by highlights? What am I looking for? Reflections?

Great news! If you use a cloud-sync password manager, passkeys are way more convenient than TOTP.

"Weird, my password manager isn't submitting my password properly. Well, that happens sometimes. I'll just copy and paste it" [or manually select a password to autofill]

The defining feature of passkeys is that they're stored in your password manager, and you can't read them, so you can't be tricked into typing them into the wrong web site.

Most password managers don't even allow you to export/backup the passkeys yourself. (Bitwarden is an exception.)

Instead, password managers support a finicky app-to-app transfer protocol called "Credential Exchange Protocol" (CXP), where you install two password managers at once, and they convey your passwords + passkeys, without ever generating a file that you can read. (And Microsoft's password manager doesn't even support CXP yet. As of today, you can only do it on Android and iOS.)

Many people read that and say, "see, that's why I'm never going to use passkeys! I'm safer managing my own backups, and I'm too smart to be tricked into copying and pasting my password to the wrong site." But they're wrong. You are not too smart to be tricked. Nobody is.

If you use the same cloud-sync password manager everywhere, passkeys just work. If you don't, you'll have to use Credential Exchange Protocol to transfer them, which is a hassle.

It’s up to you to decide whether protecting yourself from being tricked into exporting your passkeys is worth sacrificing your ability to read them.

Passkeys are stored in your password manager, too. You'll only lose access to your passkeys if Google is your password manager and you get locked out of your Google account. So, if you don't trust Google, use another password manager. (May I recommend Bitwarden?)

The advantage of passkeys is that no one can trick you into giving your passkeys to the wrong person. Every time this comes up, people say "I don't need that! I've got a password manager. I'm too smart to get tricked." But they are wrong.

This is a category error.

Meaning > Motivation > Mechanics, but Measurement is how you know that Meaning > Motivation > Mechanics, and, more importantly, Measurement is how you prove to anyone else that Meaning > Motivation > Mechanics (or even that you've built any motivation in your students at all).

Measurement is how you prove that your approach (as opposed to anyone else's) is worth people investing their time and money with you.

Trust > Meaning > Motivation > Mechanics. How do you earn trust from a stranger? Measurement.

"Apparently"? Is this something that can be tested with VMs?

Does the macoOS login keychain get backed up by Time Machine backups in a way that could restore the keychain if the original machine's Secure Enclave is lost or destroyed?