“Figured it was a bad idea” actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn’t based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn’t spend 2 months planning ahead you’d end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.

Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.

Pro tip if this happens, add more water.

Anyhow I can assure you that taking edibles daily is certainly worse than have a beer a week.

This is a crucial point, how can you? Overlooking the major discrepancy in frequency of use.

The active ingredient in edibles is an analogue to something endogenous to the human body, alcohol is just a toxic substance.

How is any of that based on something besides your personal preference? What does quite bad mean? And what is “close to alcohol?” How much alcohol? How high?

I’ve also never met a person that drinks A beer. I’ve met lots that drink beers and call it a beer to minimize their habits though.

No offense but your opinion sounds like an anti drug ad from the 90’s made by someone who’s yet to admit their drug of choice is even a drug.

You say that, but in her defense she was a prostitute.