throwaway03635

> And when the marvel of AJAX happened I enabled some of the components to be requested separately by the client code, rendered and sent to the client to replace the part of the website they occupied when they were rendered when the page was served initially.

I did the exact same thing. I made a page with a table that was fully rendered server side. Any change in the display, such as pagination, sorting or filtering would trigger the same PHP code that returned a HTML fragment. The Javascript for that was easy. Just send an AJAX request to the server and replace the <tbody> element with the new content.

The PHP code itself was separated in components which made it easy to share the rendering logic for the initial page and the page used for the AJAX request.

React solves this in a more convenient way, but I am really surprised that we had to wait until 2023 before it happened.

The problem with those types of communities is that they often have a high level of social control. We see a pattern where most of the social development first happens in the cities (sexuality, culture, new ideas) and then slowly spreads to smaller communities. The constraints of small communities leads to many "escaping" to the cities to improve their lives.

I got 4 out of 20, but 3 were just lucky guesses.

There was only one icon that I could guess from the context. The mobile analytics icon looked like a bar-chart and the other options were things like Kinesis and other services that didn't match the icon.

https://app.awsiconquiz.com/_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2Fques...

Don't worry, the original developer who started the project has a created a fork with the new license.

They removed some of the enterprise functionality and has rewritten that part as a closed source product. The core will remain open source forever.

My guess is that it's only going to get worse as each streaming service builds up their exclusive library.

As prices and interest rates go up, people will become more concerned about getting value for their money. Having 5 different streaming services will be an increasingly difficult sell.

> "viewership is a lot lower than people think and much less correlated with show quality"

That doesn't surprise me. Many are probably just turning on the TV due old habits, and keep it on in the background while staring at their phones.

> One typical response is that we should simply subsidize those childcare programs. Fair enough, but the countries that have taken this idea the farthest -- the Nordics -- have still not achieved replacement-level fertility.

Childcare is built around taking care of the kids only when their parents are at work. When they parents comes home from work, they have to find time to take care of the household chores (dinner, cleaning) in addition to taking care of the child's needs. Today's societies put a lot of pressure on parents that were not there before. Nobody want's their child to be a loser, so they have to follow up on homework and after school activities. The pressure is much higher than 20-30 years ago, and many opt out.

Childcare programs in the Nordic are a necessary first step, but they only cover working hours. We either need to reduce social pressures that forces parents to push their children to be "perfect", or just face the fact that we need to pay for organizing the after school activities (no more volunteer work at the soccer clubs or driving kids to swimming practice). This will make sure that the parents can focus on spending quality time with their kids and still have time for a personal life.

I agree with you. Now that women are not required to have children due to cultural or economic reasons, many choose not to. I don't see why many politicians think that is surprising.

There are too many demands in modern societies. Ironically, a kid may actually require even more work now than in the past. In the past the kids were less dependent on their parents. Now they need to be followed up closely at school and activities outside of school as well. I don't have children myself but I hear others have a full schedule at home where they spend a huge amount of their time helping with homework, driving the kids to activities or working for their local soccer club.

The parents basically end up as as part time managers of their children's careers. In some cases they barely have any personal time. The day is full of chores and activities. Not everyone wants that.

The only way we can change this is to make sure that it is possible to have kids, career and enough free personal time. I don't know if it is possible to do that without the government spending lots of money on these initiatives.

I think it's a sign of a development we see in other countries as well. The governments are too slow when it comes to keeping up with social changes.

Historically, women had little choice and was (and still is) under social pressure to have children. In addition to social pressure, they also had a very real economic pressure. Without social security and free health care, the children was a way to ensure that you had someone to look after you when you got sick or old.

It is not surprising to me that as living standards rise, many families are less dependant on children as a safety net. It's also more socially acceptable for a woman to choose her career over a child. The classical role of a mother where she either stayed at home or had a low paying job is gone in modern societies.

The only way governments can stop this trend is to make it more attractive to have children AND a decent career. This will require both changes in financial support and culture (we men have to contribute more at home)