Static, low-js, HTML tags used-as-intended, some basic CSS for formatting, responsivity and dark/light. Modern-looking accessible webpage from scratch done in half a day.
If we assume “half a day” is 4 hours, and 500 pounds. That’s 125 pounds per hour. Which isn’t the worst rate. Assuming it’s actually capped at 4 hours and we all know that if it’s your dad’s friend, this is not going to be a set and forget kind of thing. So that 4 hours quickly becomes 10. And suddenly you’re down to 50 pounds per hour. And then if it’s actually static and simple and good, you still have high odds of getting insane feedback demanding changes to make it worse. A motherfucking website would actually be the best option, but wouldn’t get you paid. At that point youre just doing it for the lols.
But ultimately, this isn’t even about the rate or how much time this will take. this whole scenario depends heavily on the son here. Is the son unemployed and living in dad’s basement for free? Then yeah. Sorry, he should probably take any work he can get for any rate he can get. His dad gets a lot more say in how things work financially if the son is relying on him financially. But if the son is already working a full time job and living in his own house? Then no, I don’t care what the rate is. Don’t commandeer other people’s time. Don’t make deals that people haven’t agreed to. Come to me with opportunities, not demands.
You’re not wrong, but a lot of time those webpages aren’t overengineered because the developer wanted it to be, but because the client kept making more and more demands.
The irony of some dude trying to prove a point that a website doesn’t need to be bloated and burdened with all the design and fancy scripts, just for other people to incrementally built on top of that idea, one-upping each other in the process, mimicking the exact evolution of the modern bloated website as we know it.
Honestly I hate the fact that browsers’ default CSS exists. The person doing the frontend should have to specify their “default” CSS before the website even loads. I say this as both a user and a programmer, the same website shouldn’t look different or break on different browsers unintentionally due to the browser’s CSS, and I as a developer shouldn’t have to rely on reset sheets to try to patch that.
Everything would be better if it were swapped around, instead of picking out a reset sheet for a site you pick out a default style…
The world would also be better if browsers rendered pugjs/slim and scss/sass and those were the default rather than html and css but I digress…
Hey! I made this content and was made aware of Lemmy by a friend two days ago. I decided to join and wanted to enter with a bang by sharing some of my OC.
Yep, those awful vegans pushing their agenda for their own gains. Make ME aware of MY CHOICE to pay for animal abuse and torture?! Blatant manipulation!
Exactly! My ancestors didnt pay for slavery, they just wanted cotton. Everyone need cotton, right? I mean they wouldve harvested the cotton themselves, but it was way cheaper from neighboring farmers for whatever reason. That didnt concern them though, they had enough prpblems!
Please dont twist my words. I didnt compare anything. And if I did, I would have compared animal cruelty with slavery (both as unethical acts), not animals with slaves (the recipients of cruelty).
Good point, but I never said they were the same, nor did I compare them. I just made an argument about passive involvement in unethical doings which some regard as normal.
Did you really just call stuffing 10 pigs in a cell smaller than my toilet, leaving them unable to even turn around, feeding them with drugs and then killing them without ever having seen the sun ‘nature playing out’? Good one.
I really don’t see how they are strawmen. The vast majority of people do not need meat, the reason they eat meat is because it tastes good. Taste is merely one of our senses, why is it ok to kill to enjoy the taste, but not ok to enjoy the sound or sight? That’s what the meme is getting at.
Nature playing out
Why is this an argument, when it isn’t an acceptable reason for anything else? Rape, murder, thievery are all things that most people see as wrong, despite them happening in nature plenty.
One of the things that makes humans unique is our ability to consider logic and mortality beyond what happens in nature, because nature certainly isn’t perfect.
i’m stating facts, and you concede those facts, and then claim i’m arguing in bad faith. you don’t know what that means: your accusation of bad faith is, itself bad faith.
You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.
I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It’s not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.
Strictly speaking, that question is invalid, as a rock has no genetic material. It’s like saying “You’re more similar in color to sand than to mathematics.”
I get that legacy support sucks and nobody wants to do it, but the new product is just an ad serving platform under the guise of being an OS. Maybe try to release a good Windows platform before asking people zo switch to that, just a thought I had.
Can you really say 10 is better than 7, though? 7 maybe better than vista, And 10 better than 8, But I maintain that it’s a downward slope and that the versions keep getting worse overall
To Microsoft, being an automatic ad platform is WHY they consider it better than 10. They have zero incentive to release an OS that doesn’t ad spam or datamine you.
lemmy.world
Newest