Absolutely love the writing style, which was the reason I got sucked into functional programming and the Janet language deeper than I'd had previously wanted to.
Thank you!
1,717 karma · joined July 14, 2013
Thank you!
In Berlin, depending on where you are, you even got your friendly Späti around the corner which is open around the clock, where you can get food, drinks, bread and some hygiene products.
It really varies regionally.
Can you share the link to the page where they say "no beer"?
To get the same functionality without the extra step, simply use PostgREST [1]
Wait, this doesn't sound like trunk-based development.
This sounds like a traditional branch-based workflow.
> to cut a release, took half a day to figure it out to make sure they didn't screw up.
Do you remember what was making the process complicated?
In trunk-based development, you ideally can tag a release wherever you're at. Your trunk is always stable and releasable. If it's not, you fix it and then release.
Netscape died because Microsoft bundled their browser with the operating system and made it free for commercial use, what essentially led to the huge antitrust case.
Only after that did browsers become utilities in the OS, with open source engines like Konqueror's KHTML (which later became WebKit, which later became Blink) and Netscape/Mozilla's Gecko
Teasing communicates effectively:
* I'm not a threat to you, being around me is safe.
* I have humour
* I am fun to be around
As the other commenter said, it creates bonding. You only tease people you like. I can't think of a faster way to demonstrate these qualities, which are perceived as very attractive.
What's the alternative?
You want interactivity that users can trigger. You'd need to call an endpoint in some way or another, giving you updated data, no?
> And somehow keep it styled and matching all of the UI elements rendered on the frontend?
Wait, how are your other UI elements rendered? How are they styled?
Somewhere in your code, you'll have a step where you generate HTML with CSS classes. It's popular to use React for this step, or some form of SSR where you render HTML templates.
With HTMX, you can simply reuse the same backend SSR templates that you were already using, and extract some parts of it which you want to be interactive. These will be rendered whenever you trigger an action, by HTMX fetching that part of the template.
If you want to strictly split frontend and backend development for some reason, you can totally do it: You'd have a business logic layer that provides data to the view layer within your app (be it JSON, or POJOs), and the frontend team styles that data in the view layer however they please.
And the benefit is that you'd all render it on the server. No need for the client's browser to do anything anymore. It's all coming pre-rendered, cacheable and indexable. Done.
So what are we talking about here?
What's your evidence that aspartame doesn't cause cancer? What's your evidence that God doesn't exist? What's your evidence that X doesn't cause Y?
See, the problem isn't that there are asylum seekers who abuse the system.
Nobody disagrees with you.
It's the extraordinary claim that it's a current and massive phenomenon (A) that is causeing big trouble (B) and that it's not being worked on (C), and that AfD has a solution for it (D) that no other party has (E).
Remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Here, we have claims A, B, C, D, and E that each need extraordinary evidence.
We have zero data, and the problem is long gone. Should we spend resources, time and money into investigating a phantom problem that probably doesn't exist?
20% say yes.
I think it's phenomenal that a party can divert attention from actual, real problems into decoy problems and blow them out of proportion to gain power.
That's the actual danger to democracy we're talking about.
So let's see:
> Poland studied this, and found about 40% had lied about their age in the refugee wave 2007-2018.
You might not be able to read Polish, so I'll help you understand this article.
It refers to a German investigation (your link is just a Polish news outlet citing the German investigation) done by the University Hospital of Münster.
They found that 234 cases [1] (that's the 40%) in 12 years, of all cases that were reevaluated had lied about their age in order to get better chances at asylum approval. However, they only included cases for re-evaluation that were already looking suspicious.
It's not "40% of migrants lie about their age". The "study" was not published or at least isn't online.
So let's see what happened.
The Merkel administration had to deal with a surge of asylum seekers.
Some of them claimed false ages to get a better chance in the approval process.
Some courts and Jugendämter in Germany noticed that. People at UKM in Münster re-analysed some suspicious looking cases, and talked about methods for improvement of age determination.
Wouldn't you agree that the system worked? A problem was diagnosed, and measures were introduced to solve the problem.
Now, the AfD's trick is to not tell their voters what's happened since then: The numbers for people seeking asylum went downhill after 2016, so the problem didn't exist anymore, at all [2].
What we're dealing with now are mostly war refugees from Ukraine.
Now, AfD's trick is now to convince people that the amount of fake refugees in itself is problematic, without giving specific numbers, and without telling how it's problematic, and why. They make it seem as if it's a real problem that exists, and as if it's being ignored (it's not, as we see by the scientists trying to solve it)
[1] https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/2019-09/studie-minderjaehri...
[2] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/76095/umfrage...
Oh that's an easy one, there are many many such quotes. Links in German citing sources:
https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/nazis-in-afd/
https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/argumentationshilfe-ho...
https://www.volksverpetzer.de/analyse/25-krasse-hoecke-zitat...
> And if there is, why weren't they banned already?
There's a protocol that is being followed. The AfD is currently at the "Verdachtsfall" stage, and the debate is whether the Verfassungsschutz will escalate to the next stage.
> Nazi parties can't legally exist in Germany.
Let's play Red Team here, say you want to create a Nazi party. Wouldn't you want to make sure it flies under the radar as long as you can?
Just so we're on the same page, could you give me a definition of what a fake refugee is, how many fake ones Germany currently has, a statistic of the development of fake refugees vs. genuine refugees over the last 5 years, and the mechanism by which the fake ones (not the real ones, of course) cause harm to Germany that needs fixing?
If you could provide that, and truly no main party in Germany is currently engage on that data, I'm voting AfD next time.
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...
The trick is that they set up a decoy problem that needs fixed, that only they know how to fix (without providing a fix, of course).
"Chemtrail poisonings need to stop" would be a popular AfD demand [1].
The trick here is to use a popular conspiracy theory, so demanding stopping of chemtrail poisonings looks like serving the poeple from the outside, right?
Now, the AfD would never say "stop immigration". They say "stop uncontrolled excess immigration", so it seems like there'd be some "normal" amount of immigration, and the stupid government doesn't see that we're currently surpassing it, and that this is a huge problem that needs fixing.
They want to have a say who's a "valid" asylum seeker, and who's just entering with malicious intent. And this is where shared values are being overstepped.
Populists will tell you that they know how to weed out rapists, by looking at their nose, or skin colour, or if they have mobile phones on them when entering the country.
The problem arises when a critical mass starts believing that yes, indeed, 5G needs to be banned from our vaccines, and the people will be served!
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...
I suppose you're German and you're familiar with the failed attempt of Friedrich Merz trying exactly that with his CDU?
The trick populists use is that you make something seem to be something everybody would want, of course, and demand for it to be implemented, without having actual solutions.
How do you address a party demanding that the government should stop poisoning citizens with chemtrails? [1]
Would you agree that Germany needs to restrict "uncontrolled immigration"? I would. Who wouldn't?!
But wait. What's "uncontrolled"? Who gets to decide on the definition? If we had a definition, do we actually have uncontrolled immigration, and if we do have it, what exactly is the problem with it, and why would we want to solve it?
But see, they're not in the problem-solving business. They don't care. They're in the "stir up fear and promise we have a solution" business, which is a very successful business model.
If 20% of your population believe that there's 5G in your vaccine and the government wants to kill half of your friends, you need to fix other things, like lack of education.
A ban on a malicious actor trying to game the system might be a temporary hack to win time.
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-in-sachsen-st...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire#Political_conse...
The trick is to figure out the day before it's too late.
Last time, for example, it didn't work.
Works as designed, then.
What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, kill all the left-handed people!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors?
What if those actors were paid by an entity determined to destroy your system by testing the extreme edge cases of your shared values?
Let's say Russia decides to troll your system by paying for staged Koran burnings in Sweden [1]. Now, a debate ensues about the tradeoff between freedom of speech/expression, and the value of not hurting people's religious feelings.
If your system gets weaker by such attacks, you need to strengthen the system by excluding or restricting malicious actors.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/27/burning-of-qur...
It's similar to the paradox of tolerance.
When you want to live by some rules, you have to defend these rules. Otherwise, malicious actors will use up all available resources, game the system by every available loophole, and then rewrite the rules of law.
Dark mode doesn't.
> "silk road" (a clandestine marketplace, named after the namesake "dark web" online marketplace...)
The dark web marketplace itself was jokingly named after the original "Silk Road", a "network of Eurasian trade routes active from the second century BCE until the mid-15th century.[2] Spanning over 6,400 kilometers (4,000 miles)" [1]
They ship little bets and see what sticks.