21 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. your browser gets back the fully rendered HTML and displays it on the screen

      I totally did not know this! I thought the whole thing with browsers was that, by default they do the rendering. Browser gets handed HTML+CSS, browser knows what to do with that.

      And this sounds like… the server does that, then hands down an already-rendered thing to the browser?

      How does that jive with (e.g.) different browsers rendering the same HTML+CSS in different ways? That sounds like it wouldn't happen for a site using server-side rendering…?

    1. If set to 0, the extra space around content isn't factored in.

      In other words: if flex-basis is 0, then flexbox is figuring out how big to make that item as if it had 0 width!

      This makes it so that the entirety of any displayed width the item gets comes from redistributing extra space in the container according to flex-grow / etc.

      And so if all the items in a flex container have flex-basis: 0, then the "extra space" in the container which gets distributed to the items is, in fact, all of the space in the container! This makes it feel like flex-grow actually does determine the relative widths of the items, rather than just the relative rates at which extra space gets redistributed. (…Because, in this case, those are the same thing!)

    2. This defines the default size of an element before the remaining space is distributed.

      The big "aha" moment for me here: flex-basis is basically identical to width (or height, depending on the container's flex-direction), with a few key differences described here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/34355447/2680007

      The way I'm thinking of it is "the input width value that's used to calculate the displayed width value by taking into account everything else—flex-grow, flex-shrink, the size of the container, etc."

    3. This defines the ability for a flex item to shrink if necessary.

      Specifically, I'm thinking of this as the rate at which an item will shrink relative to other items when the container shrinks.

      So if every flex item has this set to 1 (The default), they will all shrink at the same rate when the container is sized down. If item A has it set to 2 and item B has it set to 1, then A will shrink twice as fast as B when the container shrinks.


      Also, if you set this to 0, then an item will refuse to shrink when the container shrinks! (Forcing elements to go off screen, or to wrap, depending on the container's flex-wrap, when the items no longer all fit in the container.)

    4. the remaining space in the container

      OHHHHH, flex-grow does not define the size of flex items relative to each other; it determines the amount of the extra space in the container each element gets to take.

      If you have:

      A - - - - - - B
      

      And then you set A's flex grow to 1 (with B's still at 0), you'll get:

      A A A A A A A B
      

      (i.e. A takes up all the remaining space in the container). If you then also set B's flex-grow to 1, then you get:

      A A A A B B B B
      

      (they each get an equal amount of the extra space). And if A's flex-grow is 1 and B's is 2, you'll get:

      A A A B B B B B
      

      (i.e. B gets twice as much of the extra space as A).

      The key realization here is that if ANY of the flex items have a non-zero flex-grow, then ALL the extra space in the container will be distributed to the one-or-more items whose flex-grow is non-zero. The particular non-zero flex-grow values will then determine how much of the extra space each item gets.

  2. Apr 2019
    1. which boundaries we see depends on what we are doing—on our purposes.

      Here it is again.

  3. Nov 2018
    1. Otherwise any old person will be allowed to claim too much status—which is terrible

      Trying to figure out if I am status-blind. Don’t think I am, but this doesn’t sound like a description of what I feel. Trying to figure out if it does as a charicature…

    2. This is why it’s important to be able to casually invoke civilizational inadequacy

      Silicon Valley culture seems to me to do this well.

  4. Apr 2018
    1. all of these problems

      What about "talking past each other", where the people don't even realize they're not saying the same thing (e.g. two people both arguing for "justice", but one means moving to a redistributive system while the other means redistributing a particular good within the existing system)?

  5. www.rationality.org www.rationality.org
    1. We are neither about pure research nor pure execution, but about applied rationality—the middle ground where the rubber hits the road, where one’s models meet reality, and where one’s ideas and plans either pay off (or they don’t).

      Or, as an educational researcher might put it, "praxis" :)

      (The full analogy here seems to be—pure research : pure execution : applied rationality :: theory : practice : praxis)

    1. I'll start out by saying "I'm trying to write the opening paragraph of this paper", and then I'll notice the word 'trying', and I'll introspect a bit and rephrase a bit and I'll eventually figure out that I was doing was "sitting in front of a screen holding the subject of the paper in my head waiting for my gut to figure out what to write" or something along those lines. With that description given, it's much easier for me to say "aha, my gut doesn't know what to write first; I'll make an outline on a whiteboard or some other place that feels non-committal."

      This is amazing writing advice

    2. unless I had been interrupted so many times that I was beginning to doubt my ability to complete the task

      This made me laugh ^.^

    1. I've used examples from physics and mathematics because that's my training, but I believe that for most subjects of any depth, experts have hidden representations that could inspire interfaces reifying those representations.

      In social sciences I often imagine the "shape" of an idea. Are framework A and framework B describing the same phenomenon? It depends on whether they are shaped such that all the same "pieces" can fit inside them, with the same relationships to each other.

  6. Sep 2017
  7. May 2017
  8. Jul 2016
    1. pay for certification if they wish to validate that learning externally

      In a world where education is free and certification is not… how much does certification cost? How much does it limit access to good jobs and institutions to those already possessing wealth?

  9. Jun 2016
    1. giving our kids agency

      I think there's a distinction to be made between "giving kids agency" (as in, we bestow agency upon thou) and "sustaining an environment wherein kids can exercise their own agency". In the former case we lay out the choices and the kids pick, in the latter case the kids construct the choices and then choose. It's a subtle distinction and there are likely ways to see it as a non-distinction but I think even as a linguistic distinction it can help frame what we're actually trying to do in a way that leads us towards a slightly better world.

      That comment aside (and I slip all the time on making this distinction), I love this point.

    2. And now we’re besties again.

      I can relate. I have deep respect for AK but often find myself flipping back and forth between strong agreement and feeling somewhat off-put by what he writes. That seems like a healthier relationship to have with any public intellectual though than 100% agreement 100% of the time. I'm so glad his writing exists in the world and I'm glad yours does too. Seems like this kind of layered relationship is just part of dealing with complex systems. :-)

    3. If we don’t force kids to come to school in order to change their ‘mindsets’, why ARE they here? 

      To develop their own "mindsets" in a nurturing environment that values their agency and supports them in seeing and realizing the possibilities in their lives? :-)

    4. Second, this is a false dichotomy right out of the gate.

      Amen. Systemic vs. individual approaches to improving education are absolutely both necessary.