flagrant_taco

For me the difference isn't the amount of JS, it's what the JS is doing. A page that requests JSON and renders it to HTML in the frontend is fundamentally different from one that uses JS for basic interactivity.

Both uses absolutely have their place and there are products that would be noticeably worse for the end user if all HTML was rendered on the server. I've just learned to have a high bar there, the complexity grows quickly making bugs more likely and debugging more difficult.

I know a few people that bought these to commute around town. I always thought they were bat's hit crazy and did try, unsuccessfully, to talk the out of it.

I skateboard when I was younger and generally feel comfortable enough on any board where I can stand sideways. No way in hell I wanted to try these though, the top speed alone masks me way too nervous even with experience skateboarding, surfing, and wake boarding.

There's a huge gap between some JS and Spas though. The question for me is always where data is rendered to markup, not whether it uses JS in the browser at all.

I'm not familiar enough with the motivations behind that specific amendment. I could see it having been an increased concern over people being okay with ignoring the gentleman's agreement, but a political tit for tat with Roosevelt would also track.

I'd argue that gridlock is a feature not a bug. Hamilton even said as much in the Federalist papers when acknowledging that the model of a three-branch government can be slow and inefficient compared to a one or two branch model.

I think this gets a bit further down the road than my original goal of a quick solution that could be implemented now for some benefit, but yeah I'd love to see power pushed as far down the hierarchy as possible.

Effectiveness of term limits would depend a good deal on how the power and control is gained in the first place. I'm of the opinion that much of it is from personal connections, favors, and dirt that can be used as leverage. None of that would easily transfer to the next official.

If power is largely collected by the office itself, or the party behind the talking head, then I agree replacing them more often may not help much.

> Remove their power to pardon and issue executive orders

Oh add both of those to the list of things I wish we could remove! Pardon are often used as little more than political capital, and executive orders reek of executive overreach and an abuse of power.

It doesn't. You aren't the only one here that raised similar question, I should have clarified that in my original post.

I don't actually like governments creating regulations and drawing lines in the sand. As many have raised with term limits, it isn't a perfect answer and at best bandaids the real problem rather than fixing it.

I'd argue that's the case with any regulation emposed on large populations, there are just too many complexities at that scale to draw a clean line. With term limits specifically, I see it as an unfortunate but possibly necessary tradeoff that may at least give us a chance to start fixing the real problem. We both need more time to find the right answer, and we need to remove those who collected so much power and control from the same system that needs to be fixed in the first place.

I'd say term limits are an unfortunate tradeoff that might be helpful when votes and performance diverge too far.

If the machine itself is broken, any changes or limitations to the output (the politicians here) are just bandaids. I do actually think we should fix the underlying problem, but hopefully term limits could buy us some time and start to remove power from those who gained so much by the system that needs fixing.

I'm definitely a fan of the general sentiment. Exactly how that is done to keep enough stability to avoid constant churn would be a really interesting debate, but I've long thought that laws should be required to come with expiration dates that have to be renewed.

Personally, I'd also be so interested to see what the political response would be today if a group of well known and respected individuals scheduled a constitutional convention to honestly hold such discussions. It's exactly what we did to being the process of breaking away from the king, I wonder if they would get shut down somehow?

One really interesting question there, how much of the work is really don't by the elected official?

If a lot of the "real" work is done by the staffers, career government workers, etc then the politician really is the public face and occasionally redirecting the ship. I'd say there is less risk there and more to gain from fresh faces and opinions in that spot, again if that's how the workload shakes out behind the scenes

Term limits definitely come with very real tradeoffs. I'd argue, though, that if the machine is that corrupt it doesn't matter what we do with politicians.

What you're describing sounds to me like the politicians are inconsequential puppets and the machine must be limited or removed. I could a tuallg get behind that idea, it wouldn't take much to convince me that term limits don't go after the real problem.

Oh I'm all for anything that can be done to prevent politicians from getting rich through insider trading, "gifts", favors, and happening into fortunes just after leaving office.

I see that as a different problem to solve, but yeah if the solution to one can supercede the other I'd get behind that.

I'm not totally opposed to max age limits, that has tradeoffs just like term limits would.

Theres no magic bullet unfortunately. Any line in the sand will have people caught in the crossfire, whether that's a person over the age limit that would make an excellent representative or a person who is blocked from a third term that actually isn't corrupted by the machine of political favor, lobbyists, etc.

My main concern without term limits is when an elected official moves from being popular and effective at their job to being effective at getting reelected. Those are very different skills, with the latter risking politicians that are only reelected because of the power, favors, and connections they have collected.

Term limits definitely aren't a magic fix, I just see the tradeoffs as worth it relative to my personal concerns.

I know the easy approach here is for people to want an age limit in Congress, but I've always been more partial to a term limit.

I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.

I know the easy approach here is for people to want an age limit in Congress, but I've always been more partial to a term limit.

I'm sure there are plenty of hypotheses as to why this happens, but whatever the cause elected officials seem to have an extremely easy go of getting re-elected these days. The increasing average age in Congress is just a side effect of that in my opinion.

It's too early to say whether this is an example of what not to do.

Elon hasn't realized any losses yet, while on paper the company may be worth less that game isn't over for him.

He hasn't done himself many favors by stirring up controversy with his own statements, but it isn't surprising that revenue for an ad-based business takes a hit when the brand is raked through the coals by a large enough group of people making noise. That could be one step towards it failing, or it could be one of many dips while the company is not rebranding itself and changing their business model.

Assuming that you can control who thrives in a project seems like a death nail in and of itself. Contributions should stand on their own, why the person contributed them or who the person is should have no bearing on the FOSS project.

I'm not sure why intentions would matter here, or how one would compare the value of different intentions. If someone adds value to the codebase and fixes, or helps to fix, a valid bug why should we care why they did it?

Sure intentions may indicate the liklihood of the person contributing more in the future, but that's a health metric for the project and unrelated from the contribution itself.

These technologies all commodities spying, making it viable when you couldn't send a person to do the spying.

I live in a rural area. The government would never bother to send someone to spy on me here, I can't imagine they suspect me of anything important enough to spend resources on me. But they can spy on me digitally for a very low cost and with little or no humna resources. Even better for them, they can spy on me digitally without cause and dump the data in storage in case they ever want to pull it up later.

I'd compare it more to VR than NFTs.

VR was a technology step that could have had interesting uses for a new experience, pumped up like crazy by VCs that just wanted a new hype train to fill with cheap money.

NFTs, at least most of them, were complete frauds from the beginning and only existed to scam users in what was basically a ponzi scheme.

The modern internet is easily used for surveillance, the early versions wouldn't have been very useful for surveillance though.

We could pretty easily strip most of the risks out if we cared to, though we'd lose functionality along with it and more importantly it wouldn't be the massive revenue driver it is today.

I don't know of many countries explicitly require shoot to wound, but many functionally have this with laws that require minimizing harm.

It's noticeable in the stats of police shootings versus police killings, where countries with these types of laws might see 10 police shootings in a year but 0 or 1 police killings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_countr...

Oh we're 100% on the same page. I whole heartedly believe the ideals behind democracy are meant to keep power in check, but we lost that before I was born.

I'd argue that I've never truly lived in a democracy, but I hope to one day. It's a system I would fight for if there were actually a semblance of a movement willing to stand up and say enough is enough. So far though I've been a bit sad, or maybe just disappointed, to see that the vast majority of our people don't seem interested in democracy, liberty, or individual freedoms.

I don't know who Ray Peatis but there are cranks on both sides of any issue. To point to one example that you may have seen and use that to discredit all others isn't doing anyone any good.

I ate keto for a couple years and still generally fall closer to that bucket, though I'm not dealing with any health issues and started eating some breads and carbs again. All the researchers, dieticians, and excercise/fitness coaches I learned from are all still agreed that sugar is bad for you as far as I'm aware. I haven't heard any of them pivot towards saying there are benefits from any meaningful intake of sugars.

I don't quite think this falls into the fallacy part, though it's definitely a sunk cost.

If companies don't have any financially viable ways to offload the real estate costs they have to weigh the pros and cons. Remote work comes with its own expenses, from software licenses only needed for remote teams to home office stipends and team off sites. None of these are required obviously, but expected by most remote workers in large tech companies.

I expect it turns into a bit of an actuarial process, trying to estimate how many quality employees you will lose versus the additional expense and potential inefficiencies of remote.

Theres also the fact that this is a perfect excuse to cut a number of employees without officially doing layoffs. If you over hired for a few years while the money rolled in you might be happy for an excuse to see people leave.

Corruption happens under any form of government, it doesn't require democracy. The risk for corruption is always there when power is centralized, the more you centralize the more incentive there is.

If anything democracy has only shown that it isn't a magic bullet for corruption. Part of the goal is that oversight by the voting public will eventually weed out the corrupt, that works somewhat and should certainly be better than no oversight from other forms of government.

Not quite sure what you mean, humans have lives with plenty of viruses that circulate regularly and people don't choose to get infected.

The term pandemic is also pretty specifically defined as the time period where an infection is spreading rapidly through a population. Once it has spread everywhere you can't accurately keep calling it a pandemic, the period of rapid spread is over.

> The 8 hours of each kid's day where they're surrounded by dozens of other potential disease vectors.

Would ventilation really stop this though? Kids will still ride on school busses, play during recess, share classroom supplies, eat in the same cafeteria, etc. Ventilation isn't magic, I don't think there are any ventilation systems that could swap out the air so quickly that kids wouldn't be exposing each other. I also haven't seen any studies in which they retrofitted an average school building and tested transmissability, though I'd be very interested if anyone has a source to such a study.

> The period before they go home and infdct their parents, and potentially kill their grandparents.

This isn't how infection works. If a kid is exposed at school they won't go home and immediately infect others. I also feel for any child made to think that if they step out of line at all they would kill their grandparents.

> It's expensive but let's be frank, we're okay with thousands of people dying annually because we don't want to spend the money to do anything about it.

This gets to the question of what gives the most impact for our buck. If saving lives if the question we would first need to decide if all lives are equal and whether there are other causes of death that can be more easily or cheaply mitigated.

If the goal is to save on the scale of thousands of lives, investing in helping our people eat better would almost certainly make a bigger impact, I'm sure there are many other examples that would be more efficient than retrofitting all school buildings with ventilation systems effective enough to show a change in Covid deaths.