Brewing requires cheap ingredients but has overhead at ~4x the ingredients.

For a brew I’m thinking of, before the equipment, there’s four different malts, three different hops, yeast, and dextrose (<$50). Malt must be milled before steeping it like tea for the wort that will eventually ferment into beer, and this requires I have a mill or access to someone who has a mill (hopefully $0). If I don’t buy it pre-milled, I need to hope that Bell’s Brewery or One Well can help me figure out how to mill it.

(Idea) From a big goal, recursively set sub goals until action is obvious, then apply the Fogg (Tiny Habits) model to that action.

I’ve found a potentially superior means of rapidly generating quality (tiny) habits. The original method I learned from B.J. Fogg suggests two methods called behavior swarming and focus mapping to identify candidate habits to install. You start with an aspiration and then behavior swarm. You state an initial guess for an action then recursively follow that with “Great! What’s another action” until you have about fifteen behaviors. You then “focus map” the habits (move it along two axes representing ease and motivation, one axis at a time) to identify the ease and motivation to do the habit.

Opher Brayer's a positive influence on my quality and rate of learning

I will use every tool at my disposal to learn better, more sustainably, and faster. My aim is to maximize the love in the world, and my eighty years of life is short, so I will need to use every tool at my disposal to increase my understanding as fast as possible so that I can manifest more results related to this aim. Many people’s ideas assist me here, with the self-development I’ve done since a kid swelling up like a tsunami, ready to wash the world in love.

Opher Brayer suggests pattern recognition, pattern design, analogy, and real-time composition for the maximum rate of learning

To achieve the maximum rate of progress, we need the maximum rate of variability in our practice (repeated action) to gain the maximum new information possible in a limited scope of time. Opher Brayer teaches a “four-step” process to do this, with most of the variability-maximizing done in step two. The steps: Pattern Recognition Pattern Design Analogy Real-time composition. Here’s how I interpret the steps: Id what you want to get good at Break it down into its parts Put the parts in every possible permutation Practice all these permutations, perhaps multiple times Say “This is like…” to connect it to things you know, accelerating the rate of learning Use it Perhaps use Tiny Habits to use this system consistently.

Design for every size from mobile to massive displays with Tailwind's breakpoints

Tailwind’s responsive nature works via breakpoints. Every single class in Tailwind works with the breakpoints: none, sm, md, lg, xl, and 2xl. Breakpoints specify when a style should start, meaning the styles persist through all larger screen sizes unless they’re “undone” with another style at a larger breakpoint. That is md:<your style> will go through the lg and xl breakpoints unless you say xl:<your overriding style>. Start with none to cover mobile and bigger, then imagine the screens get larger, see how they should look and add breakpointed styles at the bigger sizes, maybe increasing the text size with: lg:text-lg (you don’t set specific numbers in the style, you customize it in the Tailwind config).

Tailwind will likely save me CSS-coding time

I subscribe to the functional/utility mindset now for CSS, so I know now that if I do CSS I’d make utility classes of my own, so why go through that work when Tailwind already likely has everything I’d probably make myself. I’ll save so much time looking through their library and class names instead of trying to invent everything myself. I’ll likely spend five minutes of documentation-hunting for every ten minutes of personal CSS coding I’d do myself.

A problem-solving algorithm where you write a bunch and close your eyes

A problem-solving algorithm: Write the problem and all its subproblems down Write what you know and don’t know To increase your knowns, read, converse, listen, watch Criticize knowns and existing solutions (not written about here) Cut out external stimuli to stimulate a recall response In general, wait for a solution There’s an intersection of knowns and unknowns, the conscious and subconscious mind that lasers through problems with force and speed.

Builds are not optional in the shadow-cljs.edn (for testing)

shadow-cljs uses a namespace-like config structure similar to deps.edn, relying heavily on “builds” (with parity to “aliases” in deps.edn). There are few root-level, non-build config options in shadow-cljs. Most options are in “builds”. Absent a “build”, shadow-cljs offers no way to specify a “target” (shadow-cljs can help you write ClojureScript for Node.js, the browser, or Karma–which do you want?). You also need it to specify directories for tests. To run tests with ClojureScript you need to output it to JS and then run the JS.

All <svg> attributes are optional, not required

The otherwise extremely helpful MDN SVG docs overcomplicate the <svg> element for beginners. They throw in viewBox, xmlns, width, and height attributes for the svg canvas when not a single one is required, and I think this will frustrate the beginner who’ll think these attributes are required. It’s only with serious study and experimentation did I learn they were not required. One will almost never use the viewBox (how often do you simply zoom in on an subsection of an image instead of just show the whol image), refer to xmlns (the browser’s default works fine), nor use the width or height attributes (which’ll crop your image).

Reduce the amount of CSS you need to write with utility classes

Utility CSS trumps semantic CSS! What changed me CSS-wise was when I analyzed Coub.com’s CSS and saw the “-always-visible” and “-scrolled” classes and wondered “why do that”? I understood that these were called utility classes and DuckDuckGo-ed “utility classes”. I stumbled on an article that described the switch from “semantic” to “utility” describing it as a “functional” approach to CSS. This reminded me of Tailwind, and sure enough this was written by the creator of Tailwind in 2017.