You could argue that "when necessary, do this" is exactly what we're doing with queries, but I wonder if there's a desire for a higher level of declaration that we can't do (yet).

Again, just taking a guess.

I've enjoyed using CQs where I can and hence why I asked.

I meant it as queries require you to come up with arbitrary values for sizes. That to me is imperative.

I may have read what Nicole was saying wrong, but I felt "system" implied, "when necessary, do this". If you could declare such a thing, maybe it wouldn't feel like just a bunch of fixes.

Do container queries change this feeling at all? I could see either way.

On one hand, love that CQs let me solve issues at the correct level for components.

OTOH, queries are imperative and I'm guessing that's what you're referring to. Would be cool to have a more declarative way of doing it.

They assume I don't understand the problem well enough because I can't describe it in their terms, but really I've intuited so many patterns that I just don't know how to convey it to you.

I don't know how to think of things in the top-down fashion you want. My neurons aren't even wired for that.

I'm often asked to define "the big problem", but I don't see it as a simpler, singular thing and my neurophysiology never will.

I don't see Problem A which needs Solution B. I see little problems a thru z and beyond and how making a change here has impacts all over.

People don't want to hear it.

I fully admit, I'm not wired to excel in what's coming. I'm doing my best in it, but fundamentally, I'm never going to be oriented in the way I need to be in order to enjoy it & flourish.

If I'm able to maintain work for remaining years I need to be, I don't imagine I'll be happy during any of it.

I actually think this mindset of mine comes from sports.

In athletics, you can't control outcomes, you can only control your inputs & process. If you don't love doing the process, obsess about perfecting it, you have no chance at positive outcomes.

AI is a bit like skipping all the training.

Yep, that's pretty much me. My joy comes from the process, not the result. If anything the output feels even less special or interesting because I played less a part in it.

It's similar to how I feel about wood working. I'd rather make an imperfect thing with my hands than buy a perfect item.

Hey Ivan, good to hear from you. Definitely worth doing once in a while. I don’t wake up early naturally, so it wouldn’t be a rhythm I’d do well with in the long run.

Similar challenge. With most people east of me, my mornings are the overlap.

Sometimes I think about recreating them for fun. There’s some interesting state management going on when things transition that could be interesting.

It’s kyleshevl.in/xstate but it’s a bit outta date. Library is a version or two newer at this point.

I’ve refactored code to state machines in PRs, I’ve trained coworkers on them, I even made an online course about them.

In ~8 years of preaching their value, I’ve managed to convince work to let me use them just once. Not an exaggeration.

I’ve never found the magic sauce to get ppl to try them.

I wish the answer to this question was yes more often 😢

Most of the time it’s “I’ve never heard of them” quickly followed by “that’s too complicated, I’ll keep my 14 booleans instead”

I don’t have an extra spool at the moment, so this feels a bit like a racing pit stop. How fast can I swap the refill onto the newly empty spool? We’ll find out!

My sleep scores are actually really good, but if you know your chronotypes, you’d know that night owls wake up in recovery, not in the peak of their energy cycle like early birds do.