I use a Shortcut for this because it cuts down on the unnecessary apps. Hammerspoon.app would work too though.
tell application "System Settings"
activate
end tell
delay 0.1
tell application "System Events"
tell process "System Settings"
click menu item "Trackpad" of menu "View" of menu bar 1
delay 0.25
click radio button 2 of tab group 1 of group 1 of group 2 of splitter group 1 of group 1 of window 1
click checkbox "Natural scrolling" of group 1 of scroll area 1 of group 1 of group 2 of splitter group 1 of group 1 of window 1
tell application "System Settings" to quit
end tell
end tell
Go into your Google account settings, under General, then add any languages that you watch YouTube videos in. I did this for Spanish and all my Spanish videos stopped getting dubs and translated titles.
They still track you? Is there much of a difference? Get an account you only use for YT, I can't imagine the difference in data leaking will be that much greater if they track you just by IP/other fingerprinting vs a session?
Thanks, I went there and added spanish since google and youtube were auto translating some stuff for me lately out of nowhere and I saw that there was a language already added for me by google, Uzbek. WTF?
You're mixing "is" and "ought." Why ought styles be interchangeable (remembering that stylesheets and DOM structures often have complex, dependent relationships that are rarely as simple as Pico or anything similar).
I appreciate strong opinions, but I appreciate good arguments even more. And there's just nothing here.
You're raising a bunch of meyerweb talking points from 2003, except why? WHY does markup need to be "semantic" in the sense that you mean? Actually, WHY? Provide a supporting argument that it makes a difference to developers or end users. Remember, we've all been doing it that way for years, and we switched to Tailwind. You need to have something more compelling to developers who have already made up their minds.
> Not only that, but it introduces useless abstractions that could've been avoided by just writing CSS directly. How is `.content-center` better than `align-content: center`?
There are several reasons, but media queries would be reason 1. Why is it useless, again? Remember, we can't tell what your high-level abstractions do without opening at least two files, plus we have to understand any inherited/cascading rules on top of that. If that complexity doesn't matter, then it's argument time again.
> It's making people forget how to use CSS
Tailwind relies on CSS for its class names. How would one use it without knowing CSS in the first place? Secondly, why would it be bad (argument time again)?
The reasons for Tailwind are well understood. It's way faster, trivial to pick up, and easier to maintain longterm, especially in a team environment, than bespoke CSS/DOM abstractions that have layers of hidden complexity. Now, what does your way of doing CSS offer? Remember, tons of people switched from older methodologies to Tailwind and have already priced in the benefits, small as they were.
> WHY does markup need to be "semantic" in the sense that you mean?
If you've been hearing about this since 2003, then I shouldn't have to repeat the reasons here. You can look up countless articles that explain exactly why semantic HTML and CSS are a good thing much better than I can do justice here.
> There are several reasons, but media queries would be reason 1.
That still doesn't explain why e.g. `class="w-16 h-48 md:w-32 lg:w-48"` would be preferable over a single class that describes what the element is and defines how it should look like and behave.
I mean, to steel man your argument, I get the appeal of getting predefined and consistent breakpoints, and being able to prefix or suffix classes with sizes. But that doesn't seem like a worthy tradeoff for losing legibility, and polluting the markup with this noise. It's the same as declaring all CSS inline, except using classes.
> Remember, we can't tell what your high-level abstractions do without opening at least two files
A good class name will tell you what the element is, not what it should look like. For that, you look at the CSS. Whether that CSS is defined in the same file or in another file, is up to you.
> plus we have to understand any inherited/cascading rules on top of that
Yes, that is what the "C" in CSS stands for, and it's a useful feature for propagating and combining rules without having to redefine them on every element.
If you want to avoid this "complexity", there are numerous ways to scope rules to a specific element or component. Most modern frameworks can scope styles per component for you. And with cascade layers, you now have more control over how and when rules are applied.
> Tailwind relies on CSS for its class names. How would one use it without knowing CSS in the first place?
Some class names are straightforward to understand and use, but others, like the example I posted above, require knowledge about Tailwind itself. Users can become proficient with this syntax without ever understanding what's happening underneath, thus degrading their CSS knowledge. You said it yourself—you want to avoid looking at CSS files altogether. How long would it take for you to not be able to write CSS directly?
> It's way faster, trivial to pick up, and easier to maintain longterm, especially in a team environment
Those are highly subjective, and I would argue against it being easier to maintain. When all your elements use dozens of utility classes, how do you ensure that the styles are consistent throughout the app? One typo in any of the class names can cause inconsistencies that are difficult to spot in a code review.
Oh, use reusable components, I hear you say. Well, why don't you just define the CSS in the component itself then?
Or, no, you use another abstraction on top of Tailwind like daisyUI, which is an insane attempt to bring back sanity into this workflow.
> than bespoke CSS/DOM abstractions that have layers of hidden complexity.
What abstractions?? It's literally a group of rules with a descriptive name that tells you a) what the element represents in the context of the app, and b) how it looks and behaves. There are no abstractions there.
The reason the classes are "bespoke" is because every app will be different. You might want to share some common rules between apps, and we've been doing that for decades just fine. I don't see how grouping utility class names inline makes you any faster or more productive than grouping rules in CSS declarations in the same or external file, and giving them a descriptive name.
> Remember, tons of people switched from older methodologies to Tailwind and have already priced in the benefits, small as they were.
Tons of people use and swear by bloated and complicated frontend web frameworks too, so the popularity of Tailwind doesn't surprise me. I can still have the opinion that it's all wrong, which you're free to disagree with.
Tailwind is basically the VB6 of modern web development. It's popular for all the same reasons (I'm not saying they are good reasons, just that we've seen all this before in a different iteration).
I stated what's incoherent about it. Your "Do you not think" is a non sequitur ... coherence is about meaning, and no one can say what the phrase means.
Aside from that, breathing fresh air in the morning is an activity, not a "quality of subjective experience". Generally the language people use around this is extremely confused and unhelpful.
I'm sure you think you're well intended, but your attempts at rigor have me scratching my head a little bit. I don't understand the defensiveness given that you haven't done the bare minimum to explain your position.
And no, that's not what a non sequitur is. And no, coherence is not just a linguistic idea. Then you try to explain what I "really mean" by "quality of subjective experience," and you can't even give a good faith reading of that. I'm really trying here.
You're getting a little ahead of yourself. First, ontological assertions need to reflect reality. That is, they need to be true or false, and many philosophers, including prominent scientists, don't think they qualify. Indeed, the arguments against ontological realism are more airtight than any particular metaphysical theory.
> First, ontological assertions need to reflect reality.
You're getting ahead of yourself to imply that somehow physicalism does not reflect reality, or that an assertion has to be proven to reflect reality before being made.
> That is, they need to be true or false
No, that's not what reflecting reality means. Of course ontological assertions are true or false, if they aren't incoherent, but that's neither here nor there.
> and many philosophers, including prominent scientists, don't think they qualify.
What's this "they" that don't qualify? The subject was physicalism, and again almost all scientists and most philosophers of mind subscribe to it ... which leaves room for some not doing so. Whether or not the outliers are "prominent" is irrelevant.
> Indeed, the arguments against ontological realism are more airtight than any particular metaphysical theory.
That's a much stronger claim than that physicalism is wrong ... many dualists are ontological realists. And it's certainly convenient to claim that there are airtight arguments for one's views, and easy to dismiss the claim.
They have different probabilities as they require different fine tuning. Sorted by fine tuning: physicalism < simulation < idealism < dualism < solipsism.
The moniker was mostly invented by the press. But if we're talking about all four "horsemen," I think they all made positive contributions to their respective fields. Likewise, there are fair critiques one can level at each of them, including Dennett.
I'm less convinced with consciousness as some sort of exceptional phenomenon—and how it's been used to define the "hard problem"—but the paper is still valuable as it provides an accessible entry point into the many problems of reductionism.
When you reject the idea of reductionism, which Nagel's paper provokes us to do, then the entire idea of emergent phenomena collapses. Everything is on the same level, from fundamental particles to consciousness. Of course, some things can still be reduced and others can't, but in no situation is a phenomenon reduced in its metaphysical status. So what's the "problem" again, exactly? Consciousness doesn't need to be explained in terms of objective facts—it's not a special metaphysical thing but merely a theoretical term like anything else.
>When you reject the idea of reductionism, which Nagel's paper provokes us to do, then the entire idea of emergent phenomena collapses. Everything is on the same level, from fundamental particles to consciousness
Interesting. I would have said that something like that is the definition of reductionism.
>Consciousness doesn't need to be explained in terms of objective facts
If there's one good thing that analytic philosophy achieved, it was spending the better part of the 20th century beating back various forms of dualism and ghosts in the machine. You'd have to be something other than a naturalist traditionally conceived to treat "consciousness" as ontologically basic.
I don’t read Nagel as rejecting the idea of reductionism as strongly as you suggest. He’s simply calling out its limitations with regard to subjective experience. Why does it imply that “everything is on the same level”?
