I hate to tell you this but all digital representations of pi are numeric approximations. Your joke works, but perhaps not in the direction you were angling for.
First, you're being unnecessarily acerbic. It doesn't help your case, and it's just kinda weird!
Second, the original post was obviously about the placement of the buttons on the space jam website.
Third, I spend at least half the blog post responding to the exact complaint you have. If you do not have more to add beyond pointing out that the 'hack' exists, you aren't adding to the conversation.
Fourth, the blog post and the repo has a version that does not include the screenshot and actually tiles the gif.
I'm still convinced you haven't actually read the blog post because you have shown zero indication that you are engaging with the material. In which case, why even bother commenting?
The original Space Jam website is fluid (it's 90s lingo for responsive).
It is also a still relevant website because it is a living fossil of that era's way of doing webdesign.
Asking to recreate it, should include those aspects (epoch-relevant technical achievements such as fluid layouts) and faithfulness to the original implementation.
I'm not saying that Claude should know that out of the box (it would have been impressive if it did), but the prompt should have included those ideas.
A modern reconstruction in CSS3, in contrast to a faithful reproduction, should have mirrored what the techniques accomplished with modern tools. It would be useful in a sense of showcasing how CSS3 evolved, it would have a purpose.
Do you understand why this is not passable? It has no value as a recreation.
It's a joke, right? A joke similar to this one:
---
> Make me a python script that calculates the value of PI
```python
print("3.1415")
```
"I think it's passable!" <--- The joke
---
If it's not a joke, then it's just sad.
I hate to tell you this but all digital representations of pi are numeric approximations. Your joke works, but perhaps not in the direction you were angling for.
Only the digital ones? oof, why so specific?
I would have accepted `22/7`.
First, you're being unnecessarily acerbic. It doesn't help your case, and it's just kinda weird!
Second, the original post was obviously about the placement of the buttons on the space jam website.
Third, I spend at least half the blog post responding to the exact complaint you have. If you do not have more to add beyond pointing out that the 'hack' exists, you aren't adding to the conversation.
Fourth, the blog post and the repo has a version that does not include the screenshot and actually tiles the gif.
I'm still convinced you haven't actually read the blog post because you have shown zero indication that you are engaging with the material. In which case, why even bother commenting?
Can I offer some valid criticism?
The original Space Jam website is fluid (it's 90s lingo for responsive).
It is also a still relevant website because it is a living fossil of that era's way of doing webdesign.
Asking to recreate it, should include those aspects (epoch-relevant technical achievements such as fluid layouts) and faithfulness to the original implementation.
I'm not saying that Claude should know that out of the box (it would have been impressive if it did), but the prompt should have included those ideas.
A modern reconstruction in CSS3, in contrast to a faithful reproduction, should have mirrored what the techniques accomplished with modern tools. It would be useful in a sense of showcasing how CSS3 evolved, it would have a purpose.
Do you understand why this is not passable? It has no value as a recreation.