Not the guy, but I used rails at my old job for one and a half year, and used it in some personal projects. I looked into Elixir(and Phoenix) during this time, and Phoenix felt like it was designed for more modern websites, where RoR is built for older and tries to adapt to handle modern ones. It just feels that when you want to do something more responsive in Elixir, it's designed for it, but in Rails, it feels like you're doing something unorthodox or something that is added as an afterthought. Obviously this isn't quite accurate, but it is the vibe I got.

Elixir is also a very cool language in a lot of ways. I wouldn't go all in on Elixir/Phoenix, but that's because there's not a huge demand for it, at least where I reside. I would 100% consider it for some smaller projects though, if I stood between that and Rails, and I wouldn't mind having to get more comfortable with Elixir.

Edit: I haven't used Rails 8, and haven't followed the ecosystem since a bit before, so not sure how this feels nowadays. I *really* enjoy Rails backend though, but the frontend stuff never quite clicked.

Counterpoint on the "going all-in": we have a 7 year old Elixir/Phoenix project that currently sits at ~100K LOC and I couldn't be happier.

It has been absolutely wonderful building this with Elixir/Phoenix. Obviously any codebase in any language can become a tangled mess, but in 7 years we have never felt the language or framework were in our way.

On the contrary: I think Elixir (and Phoenix) have enabled us to build things in a simple and elegant way that would have taken more code, more infrastructure, and more maintenance in other languages/frameworks.

I think the OP's point was the job market. I.e. you probably aren't hiring for that role.

How come? I find them nice to allow for certain actions that don't really require navigation, and may want the user to easily return whenever they do anything in the modal or not. I understand it is historically bad due to accessibility, but there's more native support for it now. Assuming it is implemented with that in mind, is it still bad?

Modals are... modal. Popping up a dialog that requires interaction, while blocking access to the rest of the application.

Again, this is sometimes appropriate, but it's desperately wrong in so many places it gets used.

This is sometimes intentional. Some design it that way to ensure that if they are going to do a certain action, that they have seen the toast. Obviously far from being the case all the time, but it happens that it is intentional sometimes.

That would make it an Alert or Dialog masquerading as a toast, no?

I wonder if it is time to look into some more native support for toasts in browsers.

Some implementation that allows for browser level customization(timing, etc), as well as a notification center in the browser, and that integrates well with screen readers.

I like toasts from a visual perspective. They can look good(not always, of course), and they can convey small bits of information that could otherwise be displeasing to view in some designs. However, god have I missed a ton of notifications because of them disappearing too quick, and no way to view previous ones, or anything like that. I'm not visually impaired or anything, so I can't really comprehend the extent and issues people who do may have with toasts, and see what would be needed to make them accessible for them(if it's even possible), but would love to hear about it.

Not seen any claim like that about misgenedering, but I have seen a content creator have a very similar discussion with some AI model(ChatGPT 4? I think?). It was obviously aimed to be a fun thing. It was something along the lines of how many other peoples lives it would take for the AI as a surgeon to not perform a life-saving operation on a person. It then spiraled into "but what if it was Hitler getting the surgery". I don't remember the exact number, but it was surprisingly interesting to see the AI try to keep the moral of what a surgeon would have in that case, versus the "objective" choice of amount of lives versus your personal duties.

Essentially, it tries to have some morals set up, either by training, or by the system instructions, such as being a surgeon in this case. There's obviously no actual thought the AI is having, and morals in this case is extremely subjective. Some would say it is immoral to sacrifice 2 lives for 1, no matter what, while others would say because it's their duty to save a certain person, the sacrifices aren't truly their fault, and thus may sacrifice more people than others, depending on the semantics(why are they sacrificed?). It's the trolly problem.

It was DougDoug doing the video. Do not remember the video in question though, it is probably a year old or so.