Any examples? :)

This is moot if you're storing a sanity studio project inside the same repo, because the sanity.json file has to contain the projectID and dataset, and since it's a .json file rather than a .js file it can't require('dotenv') to pull them in from a local .env file.

what does "open" mean here? Nothing after the ->? Or an empty {}? (Something else?)

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…?

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!)

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."

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.)

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.

Here it is again.

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…

Silicon Valley culture seems to me to do this well.

e.g. as illustrated in Parable of the Polygons (https://ncase.me/polygons/)

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)?

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)

This is amazing writing advice

This made me laugh ^.^

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.

<3

Barry Schwartz proposed this idea in the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2005: http://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/11/

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?

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.

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. :-)

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? :-)

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