>>7459
I already knew everything so I never bothered with HTML after the 90s, never liked what the big businesses did to the Internet with their slow loading web shops and stupid animated menus that look "impressive" to 40 year old chain smoking women at some office but take several minutes to load on dial up connection and is just useless for all functionality.

There's this thing that people do when they lack mental capacity, which is to think in long connected lines, memorizing information this way. It's a way to cope with not being able to handle it, it's to internalize it as a personal achievement which you recall only because it's your personal life story and not because it's information. These people did the same to the Internet technology and built these ways of thinking into how HTML was developed as a language since. It's sort of settled in a form now, but to get this right you have to break down these 20 year old thought patterns into smaller bits.

It's the same as the revelation that most people do not understand what an adverb is and they can't explain it either, even teachers can't.

I've always ignored grammar theory before, until that time a few months ago, when someone on the radio just said it
>an adverb is an adjective for verbs
and that's all there is to it. But it seems almost no one can conceptually grasp this in a logical manner, because it takes a certain visual memory and "lateral thinking" to see it, which was available to people in the past, but isn't now.

It relates to the retarded way of always adding Ego to all memories, so that instead of "this is that thing", it's memorized as "this is my thing which I bought over there". And then it's like Romans trying to do algebra with Roman numbericals. You're not going to do that.