littlestymaar

> Not at all the take I got, it was a specific, very corporate, section about ”say nothing bad about LLMs”

It was merely a “can we please not start a flame war on LLMs and focus on what is relevant to the Rust project itself”.

TL;DR; the author feels betrayed because the Rust leadership didn't take a strong stance against LLMs like the Zig team did.

IMHO LLMs are causing lots of issues in the software world, especially in the open source communities but I don't think Zig's blanket rejection of everything AI-related is a good thing.

> Even you use HN.

A website that runs on an infra that could sit in a cupboard under the stairs serving hundreds of thousands of users with very small loading time.

> My friends and family aren't going to be convinced to use a Jitsi instance running in my house

> (where I pay $0.35/kWh).

Using an old phone or laptop as server means you'll end up with a single digit annual electricity bill for that.

Linen is the most underappreciated fabric. It's cool in both ways. I don't understand why so few people wear linen in summer.

> HTML in its recent iterations made it very clear to try and separate itself from layout concerns.

That's what I'm saying, it's a general design principle for new developments, but that's it. (And I don't think that's a good one)

> It really isn't about the layout. It got abused for layout

It wasn't abused for layout, it was all about layout in the first place. If it was about data it would never have been possible to “abuse” it for layout, because an heterogeneous table with nested sub tables makes no sense from a “data” point of view. The fact that this was supported from the beginning shows what it was built for.

> but ideally the semantic meanings are useful. I have seen cases where "<strong>" emphasizes it by doing something other than bold for example

But I agree with that. I'm not saying we shouldn't have semantics elements in HTML, I'm saying that pretending that HTML “is only about data” is silly in a world were something like 80% of HTML tags in web apps are <div> and <span> that are here only for layout purpose.

> Yes, really. Even <table> is used to represent the data, not the layout

Nope. It's a html tag to lay out data in a table form!

> but it's probably the only element that does such a thing.

<pre>, <b>, <i> all come with an associated layout implication. But the worst offender are <div> and <span>, which carry zero semantic meaning and just means “I'm a block element” and “I'm an inline element”, those are pure layout element. In fact are the ones I'm using as template for my demand of <flex> or <grid> elements.

And html isn't just tags, it's tags and attributes on these tags, and things like hidden, height or width are indisputably related to layout and not to data.

The idea of HTML as a pure semantic layer with no layout consideration may be a general design philosophy for the language, but that's by no way a faithful description of what HTML actually is in practice. And pretending it is, isn't helping.

TIL thx!

For that to work I would need to define a custom component from JavaScript, wouldn't I? (and I thought custom components had to contain an hyphen in there name, is that wrong?)

Not really. This would not be different to <table> and associated elements, which are arguably better than a div soup.

GP said:

> completely orthogonal and swappable css.

You're talking about having a single CSS and HTML page for multiple layouts, there aren't the same thing at all.

> so there often aren't semantic HTML tags that would make sense.

Pet peeve of mine: there should really be `<grid>` and `<flex>` elements, as well as `<fi>` (flex item) and `<gi>` (grid item) for the child element instead of relying on a div soup with CSS attributes everywhere.

LD50 is a very poor measurement for this kind of stuff though, there are plenty of stuff that can severely harm you on the long term at relatively low doses but will never realistically kill you in the short term no matter how high the dose (asbestos fibers for instance). Many carcinogenic or reprotoxic stuff are like that.

Maybe it's just because reducing treatment makes produces more fragile, which means by buying organic you end up eating fresher stuff just because it couldn't withstand the logistic that heavily treated food endure.