Yup! We have looked into runtime checks to supplement the static analysis. From talking to other users, they've used similar runtime checks in CI and staging environments to catch dynamic imports and even check specific method usages.
> employees will get normal pay and medical benefits until January 31, 2023 and are “expected to work” through that period.
So severance but they have to keep working too? Seems rough. Hard to imagine anyone in that situation would focus on working for their soon-to-be former employer.
In europe it's normal to keep working after employer-side contract terminations.
In Denmark, depending on how long you've been with the company your employers contract termination notice period can be anywhere between 1 month (after 5 months with the company) to 6 months (after more than 8 years and 6 months with the company).
Also, most commonly, if the employee is the one terminating the contract, the notice period is 1 month (although it can be negotiated higher for key employees).
It is understood that your motivation will plummet when you're terminated, but you're still expected to maintain your responsibilites, and eventually, hand over your obligations. But you're also allowed to go to interviews during and if you get a new job your own 1 month termination warning will count.
I've experienced that some employers will offer garden leave to the affected employees, as in they don't have to work or show up daily, but they will hand over responsibilites immediately and be available if there's any questions.
There are a few edge cases where folks will be working through that period and contract with us afterwards in different/new roles, but impacted employees are not expected to work with us during that period.
Immigration status dodge? Say you "expect them to work", but don't enforce it, so they aren't technically unemployed and the H1B clock doesn't start ticking right away?
Maybe trying to game unemployment insurance rates? If someone is employed they can't go on unemployment, hopefully in two months some of them find something new driving down your costs compared to firing them and having them apply right away?
It's a pipe dream if they think anyone laid off will be putting any effort in.
The WARN act requires 60 days of notification before a mass layoff. So the company can choose to either notify employees 60 days before layoff or pay 60 days of severance pay and layoff immediately.
That's actually very common in a lot of countries. I think the US is the outlier in the expectation that notice and stopping of work are concurrent. Same with quitting a job. In Germany it's normal to give 3 months notice before quitting.
We generally don't remember how bad the internet search was before Google came along, but it was really, really bad. I have zero evidence but I'm pretty sure that some time ago some industry heavyweights asked themselves "Why the search in the apps works fine but the internet search is broken? Is it because the apps have the intimate knowledge of the structure of their data and the search engines don't? Shouldn't we convey to them that structure?". Thus the idea of the Semantic Web was born, using tables for layout became cardinal sin and we entered the long Dark Age of trying to wrestle floats into doing something they never could really do. Then along came Google and made it all obsolete, but the priests of Semantic Web had too much fun torturing mere mortals that they stretched the Dark Age up until the adoption of the Grid Layout.
When I hear someone saying that tables are for data and should not be used for layout I want to punch them. Yes, I've been that bitter for two decades.
Haha, ya, in the end, tables are still the simplest to reason about when it comes to layout! I kept using them long past when we weren't supposed to since the whole float thing was a mess and compatibility was still a big issue.
While it's a ton of markup, tables are build upon a few easy-to-remember concepts and you can do anything (including vertically align without googling!). I'm still constantly looking up flex and grid rules.
Right, I’m not arguing for using it, I’m pointing out that easy vertical alignment has existed in some form since the 90s, so why did it take so long for a semantic version to make it into CSS? (ie, not the display:table version in the sibling comment)
Like, before the best way to do it in CSS was the change the display type of an element to a “table cell” even if it’s not a part of a table. I mean, changing it to “flex” or “grid” doesn’t make much sense either, really, I rather just have a box with vertically aligned content. I dunno, am I using the word semantic wrong?
OK I agree it was not intuitive to change the display-type to table-cell just in order to vertically center content. It basically mirrored how you would would vertically center in presentational HTML, except you didn't need to misuse the semantics of the table element (which is why I was initially confused by your comment about semantics.)
The flex-box approach is the most intuitive in my opinion. The flex display-type basically means you want to distribute the area of a box among its immediate child elements, and control how the children and aligned relative to the container and each other. Centering is naturally part of this.
Using grid is IMHO less intuitive, since a grid with a single cell seem just as much a hack as a table with a single cell.
this is my first time seeing the `place-items` property. at first glance I have no idea how it relates to `align-items` or `justify-content`. Feels like the grid API is getting a bit too cumbersome but maybe its just me.
I am a backend engineer, but I need to do work on UI for my personal project. This guide from Rachel Andrew on CSS grid and flexbox is superb. She will take you from a n00b to a total Grid Ninja.
But yeah, the discoverability or suggestion-to-refactor-something-to-shorthand is typically non-existent in CSS. Lists like these are really the only way I discover CSS stuff.
May I suggest trying out webstorm or any other JetBrains IDE?
They have the best CSS completion I’ve ever seen, and it includes live (and cached) mdn documentation for each rule. It also suggests shorthand collapses as a feature
place-items is just a shorthand property that takes 2 arguments. The first argument sets the align-items value and the second argument sets the justify-content value. If only one argument is provided (as in this example), it sets both align-items and justify-content to that value.
or you could just use flexbox to do the exact same thing and have a superset of that extremely broad support, including ie11 without having to rely on any kind of magic.
I do use grid when I need it, but I don't see the point of using grid in places where flexbox will do. Granted this is on the verge of not mattering at all anymore, but I just don't see the point in using something less compatible when you don't have to.
I want to learn grid, and I keep waiting to be given a layout I can't implement in flexbox as an excuse. It's been years of waiting through multiple jobs.
I like grid because it eliminates the need for any elements that
exist purely for layout. This makes markup cleaner which makes it easier to change in the future.
But as I stated in elsewhere in this thread, grid is not a replacement for flexbox. There is overlap, they both have their strengths.
the one thing i couldn't do with flexbox where I had to use grid was a sidebar that was being rearranged responsively, part of it below the main content, and part of it above. but yeah, most of the time flexbox + order can get you quite far
I have not found this to be true at all. It's far less than 99%, and would require double checking all your work in IE11 to make sure it works. I tried some basic layouts and found that a lot of unexpected things occurred. If you're supporting IE11, CSS grid isn't worth it.
IE compatibility is increasingly rare. Grid is supported by 95% of all browsers globally. If your target group is any narrower, or if centering the content doesn’t break the page and you aren’t shy of serving a weird looking layout to people with old browsers, there is no reason not to use grid.
Grid is not a replacement for Flexbox, it compliments it. Flexbox excels when you are only concerned with one dimension, grid excels when you're concerned with two (ie, a grid!) And yes, there is overlap.
They have many overlapping capabilities, but there are things flexbox can do which grid cannot. For instance, flexbox can wrap with dynamically sized children.
In general: Flex is for flowing content, grid is for structured. You can do some awesome wrapping with flex that is impossible with grid. Also `margin-inline-start: auto` is pretty rad using flex, although you can do something similar with `justify-self` with grid.
A good use case for flex would be a list of tags, that need to wrap.
Quote from that SO post: "This is not a Safari bug. It's just a different interpretation of the spec.
When dealing with percentage heights, some browsers (like Safari) adhere to the traditional interpretation of the spec, which requires a defined height on the parent.
In other words, a percentage height on an in-flow element will be recognized only when the parent has a defined height.
Some browsers, such as Chrome and Firefox, have moved past this interpretation and now accept flex and grid heights as an adequate parent reference for a child with a percentage height.
But Safari is stuck in the past. This doesn't mean it's wrong, invalid or a bug."
Just worth noting, as I had a lot of fun with that one.
I'd argue that `place-content: center` is better than `place-items: center` as it would handle multiple child elements in a way most people would expect from a simple centering snippet.
place-content will position all the children to the center, which is generally what's desired here.
place-items, would make each child element center itself within its own grid square
This error occurs on default macOS when using software precompiled on another computer, when the person who compiled and released that software has not signed up for an Apple Developer account and submitted the precompiled bundle for notarization, one of Apple's anti-malware prevention mechanisms.
You can usually work around it by right-clicking the app and choosing Open, which usually triggers a special approval dialog. You should generally use caution when doing so, as you're granting an arbitrary binary whose contents you are unlikely to verify access to your private data.
ps. Developers, automating this process as part of your releasing is relatively easy, assuming you have a paid Developer account. The shell script at this link is accompanied by a clear walkthrough, and can be adapted to most workflows run locally on a machine containing your signing keypair. (And if your precompiled binary or bundle was not built with Xcode, you would skip the “xcodebuild” step.)
> specific nonstandard custom syntax to access modules/submodules such as getattr or dynamically generated namespaces will not be caught by modguard
Are any plans to get modguard to take these cases into account? I imagine this is harder without doing anything at runtime.