rhapsodic

Not me. I call it "writing software."

I keep hearing (well, reading on HN) criticisms of this sort about jQuery and they are absolutely not supported by the years of experience I have using jQuery for front-ends that have in many cases been quite complex. I use it because it greatly simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling. (e.g., no need to remove event handlers for a subtree removed by the .remove() method.)

Yeah, and that resentment makes no sense to me either. In both cases it's simply people doing what, in their estimation, makes the best use of their available resources.

Or, alternatively, just don't do business where it would put you under the jurisdiction of the GDPR. That's what a lot of companies are doing, and there seems to be a lot of resentment over it.

Examples?

Then why do you use it?

That's true for me. I'm not on FB, and even publicly-accessible pages will throw up a "Please login" screen after a few seconds. So I see very little FB content. OTOH, I watch plenty of Youtube videos, and I can see, AFAICT, all of the non-paid content even when I'm not logged in.

I saw the movie when it first came out but never read the book. I thought the movie was good and couldn't understand why it got so many bad reviews. What made the book so much better?

In the situation the GP described, how would concern about litter (i.e. cleaning it up) put the ability to have food and shelter at risk? In fact, one could argue that cleaning up a garbage-strewn tourist beach would attract more tourists and enrich the locals, increasing their ability to provide food and shelter for themselves.

  > Looking back at my weekend with Flat Earthers, it is striking how many
  > people who doubt the global model of the Earth also subscribe to all
  > manner of other beliefs, from Biblical literalism to occultist paranoia,
  > from anti-vaccination to quack cancer cues, from antisemitism to Aryanism.
  > But it was also  just as striking how many people whose journey into
  > believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises.
  >  
  > This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk
  > to Flat Earthers, and to approach them as much with understanding as
  > ridicule: if they can see no light in mainstream society, their rabbit
  > hole may only get deeper and darker.

If you have enough karma points to have access to it, it should be up there with the "hide | past | web" links.

I'm guessing the karma required to vouch is equal to the karma required to flag a story. I don't know what that is in either case.

Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. But I think I know the answer. Politics-oriented posts that get flagged into oblivion tend to be the ones where the facts favor the political right, and/or expose the moral or logical flaws of leftist arguments or tactics. I'm sure there have been exceptions, but this applies to virtually all of the cases I've witnessed, including this particular one.

Is there a particular passage spoken by one of these people that led you to that conclusion? Because that's not my takeaway at all. But if I'm wrong, I want to know.

Could you give me a rule of thumb to follow for determining whether or not a political discussion is appropriate for HN?

What specific passage of the article led you to that conclusion? I don't see how it's supportable, but I could be wrong.

Precisely so. And it's unfortunate that HN is one of those venues where many honest conversations, such as this one, are destroyed through flagging. The person(s) who flagged this article are actually illustrating one of its points.

I think it's a nod to the fact that institutions that were once viewed as bastions of free debate and free inquiry, such as universities, are now largely hostile to it. In many places expressing the "wrong" opinion entails enormous risks to one's career. So this movement has to be in a sense, underground. But you're right, the people associated with it are mainstream people.

  > [flagged] Why the Intellectual Dark Web Exists

If anyone wants this thread to continue much longer, they'd better click the vouch link.

That's the meta-argument. But if there are any implied accusations of immorality, the immorality is associated with actions (e.g. "forcing their views on") rather than opinions held or ideas expressed.

>Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what "identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual".

I think that's a fair observation, to a point. But if you watch the video, Joe Scarborough was reacting to when the guy said "let me help you think about it then." The woman was trying to respond to his point about identity politics, and that's how he cut her off. Then Scarborough jumped in.

It's not a literal darknet like Tor. It's more of name given to an intellectual movement, probably because it has to fly under the radar of the censors and the name callers and the doxxers and the rage-mobbers. Watch the video of MSNBC's Morning Joe show embedded with the article to get a better idea.

On what evidence did you reach that conclusion, ropans808? And assuming it's true, how is that reaction -- "I resent that you have treated me, not as an individual but as part of a single bloc, and therefore, I am going to espouse certain positions simply because I belong to that bloc" -- a logical reaction?

I think that's a fair point. And I think others have remarked that it illustrates Conway's Law.[1] For a front end like Facebook's, that has numerous moving parts, developed by different teams scattered all over the world, and those parts have to fit together and work together in combinations that may not even be foreseeable, then a framework like React may be the only possible way it could be successful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

I realize you're just trying to be dismissive, but in point of fact, my CRUD applications are far more complex than basic todo applications.

Perhaps some UIs are so complex and dynamic that they're easier to build and maintain using React. I'm not saying other people shouldn't use React, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't give me enough payback to justify the investment it requires.