5 ms·
Thanks! It makes me really happy to read your thoughts here. (I wrote TFA.) Calling out Slack in particular may have been a little incendiary, but I hope that
by brandur 10y ago
Thanks! It makes me really happy to read your thoughts here. (I wrote TFA.)
Calling out Slack in particular may have been a little incendiary, but I hope that it's adequately conveyed that it's a general problem and not meant to be a particular slight to them.
> Many articles lately seem to just add in unrelated images for no reason.
Totally. This drives me nuts :)
> I'm not sure this is quite right. It takes a ton of work to get an HTML/CSS page to display properly in every browser. I think my response is specifically related to the use of the word "perfect" -- maybe something else like "total" would be more appropriate.
Yes you're right. "Total" seems more apt in this case.
> I like the submitted title better than the title on the actual page. You should consider revising it!
+1. I've been told by a few people (including you) now that my titles could use work — and they're right. Thanks.
- pvg 10y agoWhile you're fixing the 'pixel perfect' thing, Mark Zuckerberg probably did not 'ignite' anyone either (one hopes). Perhaps you mean 'incensed' or 'infuriated' or something like that?
- brandur 10y ago> Mark Zuckerberg probably did not 'ignite' anyone either (one hopes). Haha, thanks. It wasn't meant literally, but more in the form of "igniting" an emotional reaction. I tthinkkkk I'm using this one properly [1]. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignite https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignite
- pvg 10y agoYeah but you're not saying ignited a reaction, you're saying ignited people. I guess it would make sense metaphorically for some profoundly moving thing but then it just seems overwrought. Zuck, Igniter!