body { LLM(
"You are an expert web designer, completely fluent in CSS.
Create styling for this commerce website which is both
eye-catching yet professional looking, while being engaging.
Ensure it conforms to accessibility standards."
) } LLM("You are an expert at coffee shop ordering.
order a venti iced caramel macchiato,
half-caf, almond milk, light ice and
send it to table 9")- A good designer will be able to produce a page whose looks are appropriately engaging, complementary to the content, unique, and easy on the eyes. For every abrasive CSS (or lack thereof) justfuckingusehtml.com, there's a masterpiece like acko.net, many of which just aren't in the mainstream.
- If everything ends up looking the same wouldn't that get... boring? I get the desire to avoid obnoxious design choices, but those obnoxious design choices are part of the web, and they should be embraced as part of the decision-making process about if and how you want to keep reading a site. A bit of friction is, IMO, a good thing when browsing the web. It's the minimum level of keeping the web an interactive medium rather than just a content pipe.
That said, you do you. You're well within your rights to browse the web how you want, up to and including using automation to re-style sites with extreme prejudice.
Uhhh, that reminds me of the super duper helpful way YouTube automatically enables dubbing and/or subtitles based on the last video I watched, my browser language, my account language, where I am in the world, phase of the moon, the colour of my shirt...
Oh and I guess negative b plus or minus b squared something something four a c over two a. I think there’s a square root to shove most of that into.
Translation: I'm not handsome, if I were handsome, Tipah (our principal) would like me"
25 years ago and I still remember it clearly. Also it was middle school education on how to solve problems in a different space; this one solving math in a second language space lol
I guess this is the version we use in Australia.
And the quadratic equation...yeah, I don't remember that one.
For example, knowing that cosine and sine are the exact same wave, just 90 degrees out of phase, it's trivial to know that sin(angle) = cos(angle + 90)
cos(a)^2 + sin(a)^2 = 1 is easy to show, too. If you use a=0, it's trivial. But try using 45 degrees. It turns into (sqrt(2)/2)^2 + (sqrt(2)/2)^2 which simplifies to 0.5 + 0.5 = 1.
Many of the others can be derived by just manipulating the Law of Sines or Law of Cosines. Fun fact: The Pythagorean Theorem is actually just a special case of the Law of Cosines:
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2*a*b*cos(C)
Recall that in the Law of Cosines as I've written it, the lowercase letters are the sides, and the large C is the angle opposite that side. So if you choose your hypotenuse to be c, then the opposite angle, C, is 90 degrees. cos(90) is 0, so that whole last term gets cancelled out and you're left with the equation known as the Pythagorean Theorem.
I really wasn't kidding when I said I enjoyed trig.
x = distance * cos(angle)
y = distance * sin(angle)
Screw the rest. I learnt these as a kid writing a 2D computer game years before coming across them in high school maths.
If it was clickbait it wouldn't say what the 'most hated' css feature is to bait you into clicking it to find out what the feature is.
> The “Most Hated” CSS Feature
> The “Most Hated” CSS Feature: cos() and sin()
Keep in mind it's only 9.1%, or 1 in 11, that actually had a "negative opinion" of it. This makes the phrasing/focus on "hated" seem a bit forced.
I just checked with some code that I wrote a while back to rotate a faux-3D pyramid, to see how I did it. The trigonometry was the easy part, it was the backface culling that was the hard part. Anyway, I decorated my elements with CSS variables in script and used lots of Math.sin/cos/tan. Also present were lots of radian conversion things and the fun that goes with animating things the 'right way'. Basically oodles of extra stuff that took me the best part of a week to do, to result in something that memory leaks if left running for a few hours.
Now I have seen this article, I might just have to mix and match JS and CSS, so I build out the elements in code and add the CSS variables to them, for everything else to be done in CSS. I will obviously need an intersection observer to trigger the CSS rather than my JS, and so it goes on!
Either way, the trigonometry is the easy part, fixing that memory leak the hard part, but CSS is the way to go because that will work perfectly, unlike with JS.
> Note: This step will become much easier and concise when the sibling-index() and sibling-count() functions gain support (and they’re really neat). I’m hardcoding the indexes with inline CSS variables in the meantime.
The inline links there go to https://css-tricks.com/almanac/functions/s/sibling-index/, which is pretty nifty honestly.
.container:nth-child(1) {--i: 1}
.container:nth-child(2) {--i: 2}
...
I don't even know how to begin parsing this sentence.
filter also had some randomness support (via svg <feTurbulance>
what's up with the magazine in general... is it doing ok?
The css-tricks website was basically dormant for a few years.
Chris (the original creator of css-tricks) sick of seeing his creation stagnate tried to get Digital Ocean to get the website going again but it looked like Digital Ocean didn't know enough about the site to resume posting.
At some point the website's editor (Geoff) who had been let go as part of the layoff came back to work on the website and their was much rejoicing.
---
You can read more about it here: https://chriscoyier.net/2024/02/28/where-im-at-on-the-whole-...
---
CSS-trick's content had a bit rocky at the start of its comeback, but it's feels much better now than it did when it first resumed.
The vibe is a little bit different now, but I think that's because so many webdev writers are experimenting and writing in the open on mastodon before posting on their own blogs and larger platforms like css-tricks.
We didn't get as much of a peak behind the curtain before.