For what it's worth, I watched the first of these a couple years ago when they first came out, and I've been waiting for the rest ever since. None of the one-page flexbox tutorials on the web really do the technology justice.
I was curious as well so took a look at the durations. This is over 2.5 hours of content. About a layout system. I have to agree with another commenter, either this is far too much content or what should be a pretty simple layout system is insanely complicated.
If you're unwilling to spend two and a half hours learning flexbox, you're asking for a bad time with CSS in general. The flexbox spec alone is about 18,000 words long, which is about an hour and a half reading time for most people, to say nothing of comprehension or grasping the nuanced details.
One could spend a lifetime learning the geometries of grid systems, so 2.5 hours seems pretty reasonable to me.
Except you haven't learned much after watching those two and a half hours. I would argue reading this [1] or this [2], while simultaneously mocking up a flexbox grid will give you at least the same amount of knowledge in much less time.
I generally agree that reading is a lot more efficient but some people have different learning styles and videos work a lot better for them.
There's also (bad) university lectures that are essentially just the textbook in lecture form without much extra benefit. I've always wondered why people bothered attending these since I'm a "book learner". I've had a couple of long talks on the topic and now understand that some people simply learn better with audio. Unfortunately for them it's less convenient than reading (time wise, quick reference etc.) but it's still good to have the option.
Lynda.com would be screwed if people knew they could just crack open some reference material instead of wasting away in front of friendly introductory videos where another human eases them into a new subject!
Creating a layout is not a simple problem, but implementing it is. The reason 'most applications suck' is more likely because of the designer (or lack thereof).
It's a lot, but it's mostly ordered by importance so if you only need to know the basics, you could easily watch the first few videos and be happy with that until you need the rest someday.
I had the same thought, but then what about people who have more than one house? Where would you bring the mail for a homeless person? Do they even get a number? What about mailing to a business vs. a person at that business?
Aren't these all issues with the current system also?
I mean if someone has two addresses which one do you deliver to? Right now they manually decide, in this "system" they would just set up their default person routing to either one.
Homeless people would likely get a code, but realistically delivering to them might be difficult with no fixed address. But that is also true today. In both systems they could get a PO Box.
I guess, it won't solve either scenario any better than the current system, but it doesn't make the situation worse either...
As for businesses, there's no reason a business entity couldn't get a code and set the routing however they wished. Just treat them like "individuals."
No reason businesses couldn't receive a code when they incorporate, and you'd presumably allow homeless people to set their location as their local post office for pickup (just like they have to do currently, I'd imagine).
The problems with the existing system are not insurmountable either.
This proposal, which isn't going to replace the geographical based system, ends up greatly increasing the number of issues, for seemingly little gain. Each objection, and proposed solution, is an example of why there are issues.
Yeah, I'm not sure how that would work for physical mail. Ultimately physical mail is delivered to a location, not a person. Often it's a clean mapping between the two but also frequently not.
"In one study from 2008, rats forced to run wound up with significantly more new brain cells after eight weeks than those who ran when they chose, even though the latter animals ran faster. "
This earlier study's conclusion that the forced aspect was more important than pushing the exerciser outside of their comfort zone. It seems like they should experiment with 45rpm forced exercise to see if that has the same effect. Though, it may have been just the article making that logical jump.
I would say that the society's most successful are often the ones benefiting the most from the law and order provided by government. If the highway, mail, law enforcement, and judicial systems, for example, didn't work as well, it would be much harder to create a successful business.
> I would say that the society's most successful are often the ones benefiting the most from the law and order provided by government.
Even if that were so, (any citations there? The assertion is almost laughable.), it's not what the argument being made is saying. The argument is being made that these institutions are somehow providing MORE value to the successful, so the more successful owe more for their use.
Which is simply not true. If a clever, successful person is somehow making more or better use of these tax-funded services, that's the side effect of him being clever or successful, not that the service has provided him some sort of hidden value that the less successful cannot take part of, and for which the successful person "owes" more because of.
Yes, and they're already paying much, much more than the less successful by virtue of the fact that they make more. But by taxing at a higher rate because they have more money, you're effectively punishing them for success. It'd be a like a VC demanding that if you exit at $10m, you owe them $3m, but if you exit at $1b, you owe them $500m.
You aren't punishing them for success. For a whole lot of reasons, the fact of the matter is, the value of individual units of money (one dollar) DECREASES non-linearly as your personal supply increases. When you were making $50k/yr, you'd probably be quite careful with how you allocated $500, because it represented a sizable chunk of your time. Now that you make $5m/yr, $500 is literally worth to you what $5 was when you were making $50k/yr. Throw away money.
Simply saying that doesn't make it so. If you make more and are more successful you are taxed at a higher rate. This is the very definition of being punished for being successful.
> For a whole lot of reasons, the fact of the matter is, the value of individual units of money (one dollar) DECREASES non-linearly as your personal supply increases.
Can you list some? How is the $10 I pay in taxes that gets allocated to some department of the government any more or less than the $10 that someone else has paid, at a different tax rate? It might be non-linear to the PAYER, but that's irrelevant; it's exactly the same to the PAYEE.
Whether or not someone can /afford/ a higher tax rate based on income is irrelevant and stems from an emotional argument, not a fiscal or economic one. <snark>And a sour grapes, juvenile "IT'S NOT FAIR!", wealth-redistribution based one at that. My 9 year old has these sorts of ideas.</snark>
Exactly. "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." It's not as if wealth can be generated from the void. The top 1% often give so graciously to the universities that made it possible, but complain heartily about the governmental institutions that have, as well.
My anecdotal evidence says that the teacher makes much more of a difference than even the students. In my high school, every single kid that took AP Calculus got a 4 or 5 because the teacher was great, and barely anyone passed the chemistry exam. In a competing high school not far away it was exactly reversed: there was an effective chemistry teacher and every kid got a 4 or 5, but somehow they struggled in calculus.
