justinmcp

Except, every time unionisation is spoken about someone pulls out some whataboutism like this, it's just not true that issues are ignored.

It's also not in anyway a counter to the necessity of forming a union.

Same, thanks for mentioning.

The process cant, but the knowledge can be. You seem to be arguing against dogma, not a mythopeotic view. And fair call, religious power structures do a lot of harm.

I made (no longer working on it); https://github.com/justinmcp/taper, which is essentially, react + "redux on server" - so still rendering on client, but logic in server.

It's definitely an interesting space to explore, I will take a look @ caldera, seems like an interesting project!

Covid is real, vaccines are good, etc, etc.

But why has everyone switched like thi? Freyr is correct. The OP put forward the proposition, it's up to them to provide data that makes the case.

> Cries of "Tyranny!" and "Give me liberty or give me death" are imported concepts that don't resonate quite as well here in Australia.

Maybe literally with those sayings, but up until sometime in the 80s, "its a free country" was a common refrain, which was rooted in the culture and expectations of the people.

Something changed though.

>therefore, the only real solution is to simply talk about the discussion/argument/idea not about the person behind it. >they aren't if you are not focused on the "genuine-ness" of the poster.

Because the goal is not to expose ideas, the goal is to change the conversation so they can be hidden.

>I really don't. I am failing to see it and you clearly cannot explain it well enough or simply are saying it without any concrete reasoning behind it. Either way, you haven't explained why it matters.

Well, thanks for the criticism, you are probably right, I'll work on it. Have a good life.

>For reference, I am the other poster. I don't think I pivoted. My entire point is that genuine-ness of >the poster does not matter. This is what confuses me.

But it does, don't agree? OK.

>You didn't say that. You said that the laws can benefit it's populace, but are often or solely pro >cadre or in their personal interests. That's not making some rules that benefit themselves, that's >more making laws that mostly benefit themselves with citizens being a secondary factor.

Much more accurate, but still not what the other poster claimed I was saying.

>I honestly find this so yucky. Every discussion on China devolves into people claiming the other is >a shill in an attempt to discredit the person and get away feeling like they're superior.

That is bad, because it is a low-trust environment - deliberately so.

> and the group is everyone who disagrees with you? That's certainly what it seems like.

That's your thoughts, not mine, but maybe you understand why I say genuineness matters, all these conversations are traps while the dishonest sow doubt. Talk to a point, answer it directly, don't derail with "facts", introduce new ideas as a new idea in the conversation, not a made claim on others thoughts.

Sure.. but what I asked was who was being genuine, not whether exclusively ideas should be judged on their own merit, it was the other poster who pivoted what I said in that way. Similar to the way the poster below changed "making some rules that benefit themselves" to "its not possible to be successful if laws just benefit themselves" - which is not what I said.

It's a pretty typical tactic - but whether it was done because they want to boost the CCP or wether they just aren't good or careless at understanding or expressing themselves? I don't know.

Being genuine; the field of human interaction isn't some philosophical paper; if your cousin consistently lies, and has always lied; it's a good bet they will do so again - not evaluating each thing they say on its merits is a rational choice.

If everyone in a group is prone to lying or misdirection - evaluating each idea will lead to exhaustion - trust matters.

> Does it matter? Judge the idea, not the person behind it I say. If the argument is not worthy to stand, it will fall.

Of course it matters, what a bizarre statement.

>> That democracies have corruption > But it's not corruption. That's the issue.

Either deliberately, though in-attention or personal need you, are mis-interpreting and or changing the subject.

> It doesn't seem like that from the outside. Looking in, it seems like the CCP has successfully pulled an > astronomical amount of people out of poverty and increasing QoL insanely, all while maintaining public ? > legitimacy.

There is no good way to assert that, but it's a pretty common refrain.

> Honestly, all it seems like, is that America drunk the cool aid too much and now believes so hard in it's > own propaganda that it looks like brainwashing, while the reality is utterly different.

I'm not American.

All this cycles round to what I was saying. You could just be an interested observer, passionate about seemingly connected ideas. Or you could be deliberately derailing, trying to muddy the waters. There's no good way to tell, but ultimately it still paints China in a bad light - eventually no one will believe anything.

One of the most interesting things about China related discussions is the flood of people who will arrive and post points/arguments with various levels of false equivalency with "western" law/practise/etc. _Not_ that you are doing that, maybe, but thats one of the challenges in these conversations, who is being genuine and who is not?

China _is_ authoritarian, denying that is ridiculous. The CCP creates laws that individually or in part can benefit its populace, but are often or solely pro cadre or their personal interests.

That democracies have corruption or vested interests (whether "positively" motivated or not) influencing laws does not make the process or the results equivalent.

Ok, so time to abandon https://www.honorarium.cc/ ? At least it happened before all the polishing began...

You could try moving https://github.com/justinmcp/react-native/tree/ubuntu forward. I no longer have the time.

> Linux - none yet

There was https://github.com/justinmcp/react-native/tree/ubuntu, but I've long since stopped working on it.

We're working a React Native port for Ubuntu (via Qt/QML). It's still early days, but many things are working.

Source is here; https://code.launchpad.net/reactnative-ubuntu

Unless you are relying on some non-general meaning of Direct Debit, then as an Australian - No, it's very common, and can used by everyone, everywhere for almost everything that reoccurs, and is reliable.

Our banking system has some rough edges for the average customer, but in terms of day to day usage; Internet banking, ubiquity of EFT, bank interchange, etc, it's quite good.

If only the banks would open up with some APIs. :)

Does the "send a message" thing work? Other than the obvious disconnect to whatever message is thought to be sent and whether that message is received let alone understood, any apparent examples I've encountered only make me consider possible inherent unfairness or corruption, not anything else.

Either the "system" is responding fairly and accurately to the level of "wrong" or it's just a bunch of power brokers in exercise, not contemplating justice.

Hey I was thinking of doing something similar for my app [0].

Allowing users to modify recipes is an awesome direction. Everyone has their own spin on a recipe and being able to share that back is cool. You should also end up with useful normalisations, this is how many people it _really_ serves, for eg.

You are also using markdown.. I went with slim (http://slim-lang.com/ - "a pretty xml" in this case) for the source, but ultimately I'd like to create something markdownish but with extensions, for dinner/meal planning, unit considerations, ingredient variations, specialised tagging, etc. Something people can read and type without hassle, but is much easier to parse.

Cool work, there is a lot of fun things to do in this area.

[0] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/cookingpot/id586052832?ls=1&...