everdev

It is an interesting idea, but it can be overkill. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be.

For example, there are ~130 lines of CSS in the Go file. Most editors have auto-formatting and suggestions for CSS for files ending in .css, which you won't get with this setup.

Also, with 885 lines of code, you have to wonder if reading the code is easier via scrolling / searching a single file or via tabs with multiple files.

Just buy the domain you like.

#1 is a good problem to have and unfortunately extremely unlikely. But if you do become a brand name, you should have enough money to easily purchase other TLDs.

#2 can be mitigated by filing for a copyright. US servers and Google will shutdown and blacklist phishing sites violating your brand name and copyrights.

Good luck!

We'll still need adults to raise this next generation. So, if we realize we swung the pendulum too far towards uniformity, it'll take 16+ years for the next "diverse" generation to mature and become self-sufficient.

Unfortunately, diseases typically run their course much faster than that meaning it would be possible for a disease to devastate a genetically homogenous population before they can raise the next generation and maintain population levels.

Yes, but you can see this with kids competing too. Their desire to win seems inversely proportional to their honesty or rational observation of a call, to the point where it seems like they believe their slanted viewpoint and beyond just trying to manipulate the ref.

> Anecdotally most of the time when a ball goes out of bounds both parties have a good sense of last touch and it's often validated by the third parties

In friendly pickup games it's extremely rare to see any confusion about who touched it last.

As competition heats up it's more common (but still rare) and almost exclusively limited to those who are playing most aggressively / competitively.

I'd put money on this phenomenon bring related to the desire to win. We see this in politics, arguments and other sports calls (that don't involve touch, like if a ball touched a line) as well where the desire to win seems to create a conscious or subconscious blind spot that allows us to be extremely confident in things that would benefit us regardless of the information provided to us.

And again I wouldn't be surprised if this phenomenon increases or decreases based on how badly we want to win.

How useful is it really? I think it only serves to conflate the will of the people with the will of the elite. I certainly don't want to be associated with everything the US has done in my lifetime.

Is it really that much harder to name the person who proposed the policy or who ordered the action?

There's still the challenge of overhead that comes with onboarding and managing a new full-time or part-time worker.

Most companies hiring for minimum wage positions want a respectful employee who will show up on time. I don't think they'd bend on those requirements for cheaper labor as the management overhead would quickly eat into any cost savings.

So, while I understand it's a "good faith argument", I don't think it holds much water. Companies will just use a no-minimum wage environment to negotiate cheaper deals with employees they would have hired anyway.

Also, one's salary is in large part due to one's ability to negotiate. A manager who hires dozens of workers a year is probably pretty good at negotiating while a low-income worker might not be experienced in that area. The minimum wage also helps correct that imbalance in negotiating power.

No, where did you hear that?

Ask Ethan had a great answer to this question "Can Stars Escape From The Galaxy, With Planets Intact?":

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/09/10/ask-...

I personally like this one where the scale of the solar system is demonstrated instead of described:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4524AAZdE

> U.K. is a better country

Not proveable, relevant or helpful

At Burning Man 2018 someone hooked up two massive Tesla coils to a keyboard and you could see and hear the notes as electricity as you played them on the keyboard. One of my favorite memories :)

> think we should liberate/invade country X

There are some people on the right and left that think that advocating for foreign war is problematic and counter productive. Some foreign wars in history have been justified and others have been out of greed or racism.

I think the point is we all draw the line in different places on what speech is appropriate which is why censorship itself is problematic.

> Since you seem to be more or less pro-censorship, I’ll assume that you’re a bit left leaning

What gave you that impression? I was raising questions to show that any censorship (or definition of civil discussion) is problematic.

It's a tough problem because bad ideas can lead to bad things, but stopping good ideas can lead to bad things too. If we all agreed on what's good and what's bad this would be easy, but we don't.

I'd much rather live with the consequences of free speech than live with the consequences of censorship. But neither side should project claim it's a utopia.

> we expect all civil exchanges to be treated equally

Define civil :)

Take any hot button issue like guns, abortion, etc. where your stance on one side of the issue can be seen as immoral or life threatening to the other side. Take a passionate / borderline tweet from one side and you'll probably get a 50/50 disagreement on wether or not it's "civil". Now what? Block the tweet? Warn the user? How many people need to complain before it's considered a problem?

Now go a step further and look at the Westboro Baptist Church. They think that they're doing a public good by shaming those who have died (because they believe God punishes sinners and their families with death). They believe it's a sin not to tell the families that the recently deceased is a sinner. They believe they're communicating God's message. Now you'll probably get 99% agreement that it's uncivil. But now what do you do? Silence an unpopular opinion?

The problem is finding out where the line is for defining what's appropriate on a platform and what will be censored. Is it 50% + 1 consensus? 95% consensus? And who gets to decide? The users? The CEO? A board of censors?

These are tricky answers and different countries and companies draw the line in different places. But the devil is always in the details.

It would be nice if everyone agreed on what's civil and what's not, but unfortunately that's not the case.

Some people refer to this as the "upper limit problem" or "upper limit theory"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-personal-renais...

"Causes" implies that you will get cancer if you partake. Maybe you mean "increases the risk of". Agreed that your risk exposure might only be fractions of a percent and not worth abstaining or regulating.

> foreign politicians it doesn't like

I'd hope Twitter is smart enough to have a panel of judges with diverse backgrounds making these decisions (maybe requiring 2/3 majority) and not a single, biased person.

That said, it's usually the little guys that get hit the hardest. You could argue Trump has broken Twitter's T&C multiple times, but if you have enough popular support and eyeballs (and run federal law enforcement), Twitter wouldn't dare pick a fight. But, if a small (enough) account or a politician with less power (in Twitter's business markets) uses similar language they'll get shut down way faster.

Exactly. I quit FB years ago and all that time went to other forms of digital entertainment, but not reading books.

If you find something that's pure good, let me know. There's always a price to pay with any activity. The question is just if the positive outweighs the negative. If you can't see both sides the you're probably polarized and biased to one approach.

I think everyone wants better transportation and fewer deaths. But 0 deaths with an emerging driving technology sounds really hard. There are just so many edge cases and physics is pretty unforgiving on our bodies past 40mph.

> Make the app a Web App and visit it in Safari.

Is the web censored in HK?

> “Like the NBA, we welcome the Chinese censors into our homes and into our hearts.”

It's interesting that we used to think the more connected we were the more other countries would see and appreciate our democracy and start to adapt it.

This is the first time I can remember communism and censorship flowing the other way.

> “It’s not worth living in a world where China controls my country’s art,” says one character in the episode.

About sums it up.

The same thing just happened in the NBA. I can't recall another time where supporting democracy has received such a backlash.

> at what point does appeasement just become acceptance of China's behavior?

This seems to be US policy since Nixon's visit to China. The difference is now we're just more open about it.

For sure the first dissenter makes the biggest difference, but only if they have a large following who already agrees with them and were just waiting for a spark. To dissent without a critical mass of support usually doesn't change much.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty jaded on our outrage culture when it comes to tragedies. It seems like people are great at virtue signaling through a tweet, an article, a public statement or a sign, but what change are we really willing to affect in the world? How many people who were outraged about this story did anything to change the world beyond saying how bad it was? What was someone willing to risk in order to stand their ground on this issue?

Same goes for other tragedies as well. A lot of talk and no action.

Or the wilderness

Pick your poison I suppose. I'd rather have control and have to pay for antivirus software, but I can see how many non-tech folks would like to offload this to a walled garden.

Centralized planning can end up in disaster though if the wrong decisions are made.

Maybe because the initial spike in CO2 came from lifestyle choices. Industry keeps up with consumer demands. And trying to advocate for lifestyle changes respects the free market.

I'm not saying it's the best or only way to address climate change but it does seem consistent with addressing how it started.

It's all in how you present it. If you say "hey, I just thought of X, do you want to do it?" It's much less likely to get approval.

If you say, "hey, for the cost of a gift card or two we can prevent a single person from disrupting our campaign" it's much more likely to get approval.

And agree, this should be extremely trivial to implement and if the project was quoted prior to development should be included in the initial scope.

We can't prevent all malicious behavior but we can prevent the easy stuff.