[M0T0K0]

1,000%. Every time this is brought up, proponents screech about what CSS can do and never about how CSS does things in the shittiest possible way.

And just like with protestant work ethic, downing coffees, sleeping next to zero hours, drinking a lot in front of others as top dog, its all worn with a badge of honor and dumb smile that hides the true horror of the many many hours you spent getting good at mangling your back to write CSS that works.

[tannhaeuser]

You know, there's more than one parallel to religion here ); since newcomers seem to approach the "holy trinity" of HTML/CSS/JS as act of revelation. As in, there just has to be a deeper sense in CSS layout models, and if I fail to discover the reason why CSS properties and olde HTML presentation attributes are essentially representing the same thing with different syntax, it's my fault for not recognizing the grand plan behind it. Thus, if I finally managed to see a dubious use case for it, I've advanced one step in the hierarchy of the CSS church. That's how military hierarchies are build - by giving people ranks, thereby using their desire not to loose height energy aka sunk cost fallacy. Of course, unless you're doing CSS/web design all the time and nothing else, soon you're leaving your trail of knowledge acquisition in the form of a CSS framework product or consulting, at which point you have a vested interest in CSS staying opaque.