Sadly
position: top;
is not valid css. It should say
position: absolute;
bottom: 0px;
Still funny though.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
560 points (99.5% liked)
Programmer Humor
25894 readers
698 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ah, the author fixed it. Good job.
Thank God, that would’ve eaten me alive
You design people and your pedantry. > /dev/null for you.
Jk, you're fine.
The px is making me eyes itch.
If you trim that bush, it'll seem larger
Why is .tree's position relative?
Needed for the .leaves’ absolute positioning to be relative to the tree, and not relative to the universe.
Damn, I thought you were going to take me out to dinner first
It's so the position: absolute for .leaves works relative to .tree. The implication is that .leaves is a descendant of .tree.
position: absolute looks for the nearest ancestor with a set position in order to determine its own positioning context. Otherwise the absolute positioning would basically be relative to the viewport. If the position: relative was missing, the leaves would be against the bottom edge of the image.
edit: I mean .leaves, not .branch
Saw this post about "CSS Gardening," and I'm reminded of debugging my first responsive website. Did anyone else spend hours wrestling with margins and padding, only to realize it was a typo in the media query? I did! Now I meticulously check my syntax.
Okay, nun weiß ich wie man Scharmbehaarung programmiert....
Das ist nicht _iel.
Und *Scham
Scharm ^^