the average married couple in America still works about 67 hours a week.

The problems that we solved are applicable to a lot of people. Most people are not even aware of these problems, so things can break in unexpected ways (Murphy's law). It's inefficient if everybody has to solve these problems over and over.

Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said.The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack.No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework.I've seen this too many times already.It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks.Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.

Joe learned the most efficient way to use his body by acquiring a set of routines that were quick and preserved energy. Otherwise he would never have survived on the line.

Sure, the slow way is always "good enough" — until you learn a better way of doing things. By your logic, then, we shouldn't have the option of including "Move to" in our context menus either — because any move operation could be performed using the cut and paste operations instead? The method you proposed is 6-7 steps long, with step 4 being the most onerous when you're in a hurry: Select files "Cut" "Create New Folder" Think of a name for the new folder. Manually type in that name, without any help from the tool. (We can't even use copy and paste to copy some part of one of the file names, for example, because the clipboard buffer is already being used for the file selection.) Press Enter Press Enter again to enter the new folder (or use "Paste Into Folder") "Paste" The method that Nautilus (and apparently Mac's Finder) provides (which I and others love) is much more efficient, especially because it makes step 4 above optional by providing a default name based on the selection, coming in at 4-5 steps (would be 3 steps if we could assign a keyboard shortcut to this command like Mac apparently has ): Select files Bring up context menu (a direct shortcut key would make this even sweeter) Choose "New Folder With Selection" Either accept the default name or choose a different name (optional) Press Enter Assuming "Sort folders before files" option is unchecked, you can continue working/sorting in this outer folder, right where you left off: Can you see how this method might be preferable when you have a folder with 100s or 1000s of files you want to organize it into subfolders? Especially when there is already a common filename prefix (such as a date) that you can use to group related files together. And since Nemo kindly allows us to choose which commands to include in our context menu, those who don't use/like this workflow are free to exclude it from their menus... Having more than one way to accomplish something isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Lazy == Efficient, so no judgements. :)

Tech support works with scripts. Just get to know these scripts by heart and answer all questions from the script you can in one long sentence, before they ask it. Like in "Hi I have a problem with this and that...I have restarted the router, I have checked the cables, the red light is on, the green light is off, not other lights are blinking......etc.etc.etc. That way the person at the other end of the line can just go click-click-click and you'll be 10 steps further in their script in 5 seconds.

Write less code, save time and code more efficiently with MJML’s semantic syntax.

Find-ability / scan-ability: The time it took a participant to find and click on a requested element

Better contribution workflow: We will be using GitHub’s contribution tools and features, essentially moving MDN from a Wiki model to a pull request (PR) model. This is so much better for contribution, allowing for intelligent linting, mass edits, and inclusion of MDN docs in whatever workflows you want to add it to (you can edit MDN source files directly in your favorite code editor).

However, in the all caps example the order of importance goes Title->Actions->Description (or even the actions before the title), while in the others this order is not as evident at first glance.

Please don't copy answers to multiple questions; this is the same as your answer to a similar question

A left navigation is faster and more efficient for users to scan. In just three visual fixations, users scan six items in the left navigation compared to the three items scanned in the top navigation. The left navigation also facilitates a vertical scanning direction that is natural for people