The docs up through version 3.x explicitly called this out as not recommended and a poor choice, but the justifications were... sort of lame. "You'll have to come up with class names, your css bundle might be bigger, etc". I did read a more technical github issue on @apply vs theme() which called out the apply behaviour as doing a bit more than expected. I don't recall 'theme' being a thing in earlier tailwind versions, but I'm not an expert at it, so I might have missed that.
Moved from SE to 12 mini, now a 13 mini - just bought used last year. Will likely hold on for another year or two. Desperately want a small screen. There just seem to be no options.
Re: thumb - I have found some gesture to pull the screen down halfway so you can reach the 'top' part without moving your hand. It's close to OK, and it's almost second nature now, but still annoying.
At first blush, it would seem the use of the name/logo really violates something, making it look 'official'. Something referencing their name, without the logo, and a bit 'not officially affiliated with' notice might have earned a bit more cooperation from them, vs legal aggression so soon.
FWIW, I'd found https://www.geocod.io/ to be a good service a couple years back. They sponsored some conferences I went to, and I needed some geocoding->timezone info. IIRC, at the time, it was $5/month which covered everything we needed. Dunno if that's eye-watering or not.
Seems to have changed pricing a bit since. The 'pay as you go' model now has 2500 API calls/day for free, and $1/2000 API calls after that. My needs never grew in to needing much more than what we hit for that $5/month, so I can't vouch for their service at a large scale, but I enjoyed using it.
Co-Founder of Geocodio here — glad we were able to help with your geocoding+timezone needs!
(And glad to hear that conference sponsorships work. A lot of smaller conferences are struggling to find sponsors these days, so if anyone reading is in a position to sponsor, the organizer of your favorite conference would probably appreciate it!)
You're welcome. Thanks for the sponsorships! They DO work, but I imagine sometimes hard to quantify. I know I've been able to recommend geocodio first hand to folks in my user groups who a) hadn't heard of it and b) wouldn't have been able to attend conferences.
FWIW, first time I saw you was at LonghornPHP in Austin. 2021, IIRC.
The organizer of Longhorn PHP is a friend of ours (Daniel Abernathy), and we have a somewhat official-unofficial rule that we always sponsor our friends' conferences :)
Thanks for being a sponsor at PHP[Tek] this year. Your stickers are out on a table next to our booth and I've been periodically telling people what you guys do as they walk by.
You also have to find the people who have authority to make buying decisions in the first place.
And... many times people saying "tool X sucks"... it might, but that's the only tool that is blessed, or is the only one that has integration with something else they rely on, etc.
Yes, I agree—especially when it comes to larger corporate entities.
With smaller companies, I’ve often found myself face-to-face with key decision-makers, owners, VPs, and others—where I at least had the opportunity to discuss (or pitch) a service or product. In my case, though, I usually didn’t have anything to promote during those networking or social situations. Still, I believe it’s generally easier to connect with small businesses than with large corpo's. It’s just a matter of putting yourself out there as much as possible.
As for the elephant in the room: large corporations are riddled with bureaucracy, inflexible policies, and, frankly, executives who often don’t give a hoot. Not impossible—but definitely more difficult.
Speaking from experience (and this may be hard to believe, especially after being accused of being an LLM agent): one of my SaaS web apps I developed last year is currently in use—at no cost—by a top Fortune 500 company. I can't name them, but I maintain the app through a small fee charged to one of their 3rd-party vendors I work with.
Now, to be clear: the number of users is barely worth mentioning, but the collective data and its operational value are huge for that corporate department. In short, they love it. Ever since launch, I've been trying to convince them to take on the fees directly and scale the app across all their branches. Even though their internal team, including IT department, has endorsed it and approved internal use, they have too many barriers to jump even before thinking of adopting it as their own tool. Anyway—just sharing. Sorry for the long comment! Amen.
I seem to recall Lennon's "Instant Karma" phase, where he wanted to just get stuff out. Had a song idea, recorded, mixed, shipped out to pressing and was for sale in stores within 10 days.
I suspect a lot of artists over the years have just itched to get something out today, but yeah... without the tech, it was just impossible.
James Brown had that vertical integration once he hit his stride in the 1960’s.
It wasn’t uncommon for him to take the band in for a late night studio session (after a 3 hr show). The song would be recorded and mixed on the fly. Then a copy would be sent to his vinyl pressing plant, which could turn the physical copies around in a day. At the same time, the radio stations he owned in the Augusta GA, area would start playing the latest cut. Just in time for it to hit stores and be available for purchase.
It's that last step - 5 - which I think is a missing piece of the discussion. A lot of private company pharma and medical research is often doing the 'last mile' work that started in university research programs. Stuff that looks promising is picked up and commercialized, but there's usually significant work the research people have done before big commercial players take it to market. They're not doing all their research from scratch - they're taking the best bits funded by our government research programs and bringing them to market. Cutting university research will damage the private sector pretty quickly.
It even goes beyond the concrete research that eventually gets commercialized. One pharma startup I am familiar with has much of its research-related leadership and board staffed with very successful current or former academic researchers who used to run their own labs or even departments. We cannot shift skill acquisition like that over night to private industry.
“They’re just spinning their wheels, citing in many cases overstated or fake savings,” said Romina Boccia, the director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute. “What’s most frustrating is that we agree with their goals. But we’re watching them flail at achieving them.”
To your point, people have taken musk/doge at face value, with 'efficiency' being the goal. That's not been the goal. But... pointing that out seems to make you some sort of conspiracy theorist.
"Just give them time! It takes time!"
We did have some meaningful government cutbacks in the 90s. It took months of bipartisan collaboration and dealmaking, and we ended up with a balanced budget and a bit of a surplus. The process was a lot more open, experts were consulted, hearings and studies were done, and we did make some short-lived progress there.
None of that process was even entertained. We had a charlatan foisted on us in the role of "chief slasher of anything woke", and a third of our country cheered it on, until they got cut. Those not cut/affected still seem to support this circus.
Back in the 1990s politics were much less polarized. Nowadays, perhaps due to the WWW, polarization is so strong that a bipartisan collaboration on this matter is highly unlikely. I don't even know if the Democrats are in principle interested in shrinking the government.
>Back in the 1990s politics were much less polarized.
The 90s were the era of Gingrich and the "Contract With America" and the rise of figures like Rush Limbaugh. If you weren't around it was pretty bad back then too. Witness the enduring "the Clintons are LITERALLY an evil crime family" meme from then that persists to this day.
I think about the quote that "Only Nixon could go to China" and maybe there's a corollary that "Only Clinton could balance the budget". Similar to how Nixon had the anti-commie credentials to be able visit Mao's China, Clinton had the liberal credentials to be able to cut social spending. I don't think that the budget surplus that Clinton left us was all due to social spending cuts, but he did make significant cuts.
