loh

From my experience, this is not the case, not for a long time now, at least.

With proper architecture, all you need is plain React (no frameworks) with `styled-components` for everything - i.e., server rendering, client rendering, and hydration.

The architecture I'm describing is a fully top down approach, with concerns separated into API, UI, and App components, where the route dictates the data to be fetched, which is passed as a `store` to the layout to be rendered, with each layout being a composition of the UI components, App components, and occasional API components. I've had a lot of success with this approach and it is, in my opinion, the simplest way, incredibly easy to follow and maintain, and extremely minimal for what is actually being achieved.

With this architecture, switching between server-only rendering and client-only rendering and/or some combination of both becomes a matter of minutes, or even just seconds if you have some env var switches in place.

That makes sense. Actually trying out the accessibility features myself sounds... interesting.

I always try my best to make things as accessible as possible by following accessibility standards and semantic elements the best that I can. It is more difficult than one would think though, especially without fully understanding the perspectives of those who need the bit of extra consideration. I'm sure I fall short on many things which would help these people use my software more effectively, but this article provided some interesting insights.

I know there are some checklists and some tools out there which help verify certain accessibility standards (for web applications at least), but does anyone know of a better way to test/verify accessibility without actually getting e.g. someone blind to try things out and provide feedback?

If you think hundreds or thousands (or maybe even decades) into the future, it's pretty clear that it should be entirely possible to fully automate everything required for basic human needs. Obviously there will be some human labor required to build it, and probably some discouraging speed bumps along the way, but just because it does not exist in our present time doesn't mean it's impossible.

I dream of a future where everyone has all of their basic needs met through technology, giving people the capacity to focus on doing the things they are naturally good at doing, things they enjoy, all on their on free time with their own free will. If you think about it, technology is nothing more than the rearrangement of resources to create tools which make our lives easier. Progression of technology is just a matter of how much better we get at creating these tools, and we are getting better and better and we will never stop. We will eventually have tools that make it effortless to satisfy all basic human needs. Automation is inevitable.

You are right that people will always have jobs, but the jobs that people have will also always change.

When I see a company conducting these kinds of tests during interviews, it's a signal to me that they are probably not a very forward-thinking company, and probably not a good fit for someone like me who tends to think outside the box. If it's another cog in their machine that they want, these kinds of interview tests are probably pretty good. But if they're an innovative company trying to change the world, they'd be much better off with a different, more pragmatic approach designed to attract the independent thinkers.

Beyond that, in my opinion, nearly anyone with average programming experience can hack a typical programming/whiteboard interview, so these kinds of interviews are definitely not the best way to find the best fit for particular roles. It's a good way to filter out the inexperienced, for sure, but it's a pretty low bar to set, especially if it's a company looking for top tier engineers, people with the ability to see the bigger picture.

It's also likely that a great engineer would pass the test with ease, but because their skillset and abilities have been inaccurately assessed due to the poor interview process, the company could have initially assigned them a much more effective role where both the company and the employee could have benefited to a much greater extent, but didn't. Overall, relatively speaking, the "hackable test" approach wastes time and hurts everyone in the long run, both employers and employees. A little investment up front with more personalized, specific interviews can go a long way.

I think we should start refusing these impractical interview processes, or at the very least, from an interviewee standpoint, turn down jobs (if you can) and let the potential employer know that their interview process is the reason.

I've been using Brave for a while, maybe a couple of years. Its default ad blocking doesn't work 100% of the time, so I've installed uBlock Origin. I don't use the BAT functionality at all, but I think one of the main advantages to Brave (and likely any Chromium-based browser) is that you get all of the same fast, consistent rendering, plus all of the same Chrome extensions will work without any extra effort.

I'm mostly referring to the younger generation(s) and the apps most widely used by them. Think of the simplicity of applications like Instagram and Snapchat. There isn't much to the interfaces for most user interaction - some images, videos, text, an input or two, and a few buttons. There may be some advanced touch interactions (pinching and swiping), but overall, applications these days tend to be relatively simple.

Older generations definitely struggle using software though, so I think they may be a good metric for how simple and easy to use software can be.

Anecdotal experiences could certainly play a role in my opinion here, but I do think I've recognized a pattern over the past couple of decades where winning software interfaces have made a transition from being overly designed and complex to much simpler designs with (usually) predictable interactive element positions and flows.

Think of what software was like when there were "shiny" buttons and small text everywhere with confusing visual flow, and then think about what it is now, usually composed of flat buttons (e.g., the "material-ui" standard) and easy to digest visual flow with predictable interactions. This transition is likely a natural result of figuring out over time what works best and what doesn't.

By tech savvy people, I mean the end users who interact with software on a regular basis. These people (i.e., most people in the modern world, a number steadily increasing) will naturally gravitate towards the easy-to-use, predictable design patterns to which they've become accustomed.

I think more and more people are realizing that simpler is almost always better, and not only when it comes to software. I've found that this approach works best for nearly all aspects of life.

The hard part is simplifying complex things. We have so many odd pieces (usually due to legacy reasons or conflicting designs) which don't quite fit into an otherwise simple solution.

Plain text could probably work for most forms of communication and data formats. It's when you need to separate, categorize, and interact with the information that you need more than plain text.

This website briefly addresses plain text's shortcomings, so to add to that, in terms of software UX, I would say plain text should be used as a starting point while adding interactive elements (e.g., buttons) and layouts only as necessary. By layouts I mean visual separation of categorized information via whitespace and/or color variations. I've found that this results in extremely intuitive interfaces that are both easy for users to digest and developers to maintain.

We seem to be following a trend where "winning" software has little to no learning curves, as they are becoming the simplest possible tools for daily use. I'm not sure if it's a result of the fact that most people are tech savvy, or if we're just getting better at building software and designing interfaces. It's probably some combination of both.

I actually like this design because it's not the same old boring style of nearly every other vehicle these days, but I've always been pretty nonconformist.

What really stood out to me is the truck bed and the way the ramp pulls (or folds?) out. It actually seems very sensible and well designed, despite looking like it's trying too hard to be different.

Well, since you brought it up... My MBP was actually one of the most expensive things I had ever bought, at that time. I've been pretty poor my entire life (e.g., sometimes had to skip meals as a kid because we had nothing to eat), and I worked harder than you can probably imagine for many years to be as good with computers and tech as I am now. I bought the MBP using a few thousand dollars that I had saved up from some odd freelance jobs, which was the most money I'd ever had, and the purchase of the MBP took a significant percentage of it. However, I knew that the MBP would be a good investment (and I'm now aware of just how good of an investment it was, compared to newer models) to help me find more work, be more effective, and make more money. I am very lucky to have chosen this path, for sure, but don't assume things about people.

I am generally not a lucky person, but after hearing all these horror stories of 2016+ MBPs, it's obvious that I really lucked out when I bought my 13" MBP in fall of 2015, which I'm using right now to make this post. I've only had to service it once to get the "logic board" replaced, which cost me something like $600 last winter, but it was pretty obvious that it was still the best option after comparing to the newer MBPs and many other laptops. I'll be a sad panda when this bad boy becomes unrepairable.

I think it also depends on the person (their vision/health/etc.) as well as the surgeon's experience plus the equipment. The hours/days following the procedure are also pretty critical. You have to be very careful to not rub your eyes or anything like that and get plenty of rest while using the eye drops as prescribed.

Am I one of the lucky ones? I see quite a few negative comments about dry eyes, halos, etc., but for me that really only lasted about a week or two. It healed so quickly that I actually don't even remember now how long it took, exactly. With that said, I made sure to go to a surgeon with a lot of experience, using the latest proven tech. I spent $4500 on it and I feel it was worth every penny.