Even though it arguably should be, according to HTML5 parsing rules, this is not invalid. It is just interpreted differently from
what most people would probably expect.
I think this is the point of the example, afaiui: The closing tags don’t clarify anything, quite the contrary, actually. They serve only to confuse the reader.
They are not nested, according to HTML5 parsing rules. You get 3 (yes, three) sibling paragraphs, including an empty one.
There being nesting is just implied by the closing tags and indentation. But it is not actually there. I think this is the point of the example: Adding the closing tags just confuses the reader, by implying nesting that is not actually there, and even introduces a third empty paragraph. It might be better left out entirely.
Self-closing tags do nothing in HTML though. They are ignored. And in some cases, adding them
obfuscates how browser’s will actually interpret the markup, or introduce subtle differences between HTML and JSX, for example.
How would you measure the performance, given that it is a non-profit? Which self-respecting CEO who is actually good would go for such a deal? I think it is important to understand that the employees of a non-profit are allowed to earn a proper salary.
It used to be very good, but now the personalized recommendations kind of suck. Seems like they enormously regressed, and basically do the 2009 move of just shoving the last type of video you watched in your face 37 times.
Mr Beast not looking like a normal person next to Colin Furze is impressive.
That guy is so over the top that I cannot bear watching his videos, despite them theoretically being exactly up my alley. I like tinkering videos, I like his ideas, and the high-quality results, but I hate his mannerisms.
+1 on this... the spend outside of development is kind of fascinating as a while IMO. That they let Thunderbird languish for so long, they pretty much nuked XULRunner, and a bunch of pretty cool tech along the way.
It’s mostly the argument of a single guy (ljharb), who has very strong and weird opinions.
There were several extremely long and unproductive GitHub discussion with him posted to HN before, where he sent unsolicited and unwanted PRs to lots of projects that tanked performance by orders of magnitude and introduced tens of dependencies (he wrote himself), to ensure that projects would be backwards compatible with completely irrelevant targets they never supported in the first place (like Internet Explorer 1.3 under Windows 95 or something along those lines).
When projects did not want to take these contributions, he played his TC39 authority card, and when that did not help became more and more incoherent in his ramblings.
My take is that this guy actually wants to and thinks he is doing good, while actually having lost the plot a while ago.
> aren't these the people that would want the ability to disseminate information in the face of fascism?
Everybody wants free speech — but only for opinions they agree with. And they are against censorship — unless the "right people" are censored.
Recently, the left has been far more authoritarian, labeling everything they don't like as "far right hate speech", pushing to make dissent illegal, and demanding censorship. I guess the pendulum will swing the other way eventually.
It's not really a left VS right issue, but an authoritarian one. Free speech can be uncomfortable, that is the point. "Free speech, but…" does not work.
> Recently, the left has been far more authoritarian
I'm not sure how a reasonable comparison of authoritarian behavior seemingly assigns more weight to random Wikipedia contributors lumped together as "leftists" compared to the literal government currently controlled by the right that is routinely threatening to pull FCC licenses for critical speech among other intentionally speech chilling threats.
I'd say the pendulum has already swung the other way, while swinging much, much further and more openly than nebulous mob demands for "cancel culture", over zealous Twitter moderation of hate speech or whatever else the previous go-to examples for the left were. Before 2025 showed what a truly authoritarian anti-free speech policy looks like when wielded by those with actual legal power and zero shame.
I think this is the point of the example, afaiui: The closing tags don’t clarify anything, quite the contrary, actually. They serve only to confuse the reader.
reply