Yeah, HTML is simple and completely and utterly static. Its simple to the point of not being useful for displaying stuff to the user.
masterspace
joined 2 years ago
Clearly that's indicative of you two both being accurate in your assessments.
Totally couldn't be an old man yells at cloud situation with you two separated by close to a decade...
You would "Franz Ferdinand" your way to a needless war.
C suite is making on average 1.5M per year.
Pay your workers and shut up.
Unilaterally labelling people 'fascists' and thus worthy of death, makes you a fascist.
We aren't. Guns drastically increase the death rates of violence and attempted suicide. Banning guns will reduce these. It does this at the cost of the state obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I believe we can drastically reduce the rate of fun violence through testing requirements before someone can buy a gun, like what we do with cars.
The state always maintains that monopoly. If citizens buy guns, the police militarize.
Citizens do not enact change with the state through guns, they do so through numbers, by turning out and striking en masse.
Yeah, but in this case we're talking about Green P lots which are owned by the City of Toronto, not privately owned lots.
The nooticer can never train their powers inwards for fear of nooticing too much and ceasing to be
On the one hand housing is good.
On the other hand, getting rid of on-street parking and moving those cars into off-street stacked lots is good as it provides space for dedicated bike and transit lanes. Plus, the faster it is to move throughout the city, the more effective space the city has to work with (i.e. a home 45m from a downtown job is a home 45m from a downtown job, regardless of whether that's at Ossington because traffic is a nightmare or whether it's at Jane because it's not).
Ideally we'd bury the parking and build housing on top, though that's not feasible for a bunch of the lots that are built on top of the subway (like along Bloor).
You want to tax a city owned parking lot? Who would the city be paying that tax to?
But most importantly, many Americans believe that the equalizing force of firearms—something that allows the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and for the weak/frail to defend themselves against the physically strong— is philosophically worth a small reduction in public safety.
How many times guns have helped resist tyranny in the US?
I'll start citing innocent people killed by the tyranny of widespread gun availability.
An fuck off with these dumbass, utterly vacuous Anti JavaScript rants.
I'm getting so sick of people being like "I keep getting hurt by bullets, clearly it's the steel industry that's the problem".
Your issue isn't with JavaScript it's with advertising and data tracking and profit driven product managers and the things that force developers to focus on churning out bad UXs.
I can build an insanely fast and performant blog with Gatsby or Next.js and have the full power of React to build a modern pleasant components hierarchy and also have it be entirely statically rendered and load instantly.
And guess what, unlike the author apparently, I don't find it a mystery. I understand every aspect of the stack I'm using and why each part is doing what . And unlike the author's tech stack, I don't need a constantly running server just to render my client's application and provide basic interactivity on their $500 phone with a GPU more powerful than any that existed from 10 years ago.
This article literally says absolutely nothing substantive. It just rants about how websites are less performant and react is complicated and ignore the reality that if every data tracking script happened backend instead, there would still be performance issues because they are there for the sole reason that those websites do not care to pay to fix them. Full stop. They could fix those performance issues now, while still including JavaScript and data tracking, but they don't because they don't care and never would.