You’re impossible. You do not understand the essence of text and would very much prefer to read them in the worst way possible, and thus fall back on strict absolutism of the law. I cannot help you, and would very much suggest you seek help and therapy. Best of luck to you.

This is such a keyboard warrior moment here with so little brain cells involved in the actual reasoning, and I can see that you’re clearly trying to make use of the general anti-separatist sentiment here in Canada to rile people up that I find it almost pointless to reply to you. If you think that by simply listing some legitimate sources, you’d have the upper hand in an argument, you’d be dead wrong.

First off, while i certainly oppose Alberta’s separating from Canada, if they make a legit case to show that the majority of their citizens are in support of that, I don’t see why they can’t just separate. Heck, any province can do that if they want to through legitimate means. Let’s freaking talk about it.

Secondly, The Rule of Law is important, but it is not absolute. The Law has many limits, and heck, it even changes over time. Nothing that changes over time can be absolute; that’s just contradictory.

Further, the Rule OF Law is something that is implemented, and good lawyers are trained to understand and uphold the “spirit” of the law, not the exact stipulations of it, which often leaves a lot of details unspecified or vague. And the Law isn’t always updated in a timely manner to answer every complication or conflict in human society; that is practically impossible and untenable. In the case of China and Taiwan, let’s say I forgive you to have very conveniently acknowledged the PRC as the sole owner of the name “China” while ignoring the ROC’s claim over the name, and thus conveniently claiming that Taiwan should simply be treated as the land that the PRC has sovereigty over. The argument over who should be the legitimate receipient of the benefits from the aigned signed Treaty of San Francisco is irrelevant due to the civil war that’s happened in China later on. Both parties are technically, or should I say, legally, at war with each other ever since. And if you really want to argue about that one dumb treated, well, there the damn Treaty of San Francisco itself doesn’t legitimize either the PRC or ROC as the government of China. So bringing this up is moot, and, frankly, it just tells me what contents you’ve been fed with.

Now onto the where the limits of the law comes in. If we simply follow the letters of the law, oh boy do we have some fun situations that’d happen. So many darn countries would simply not exist if we simply follow it to the letter. France could’ve forever denied having signed a treaty with England to easily legitimate the UK as we know it, or, back in those days, apply enough pressure militarily and economically to the England to supress its people’s desires to declare their own independence. This is what we see today with China; the people of Taiwan has repeatedly showed a desire to declare their own independence from the war, only to be threatened by China with military and economic force. While the Law certainly isn’t under China’s control, if we simply go by your wat of following the law to the dot, then you are simply ruling BY Law while claiming that this is the Rule OF Law, while simultaneously acknowleging thar it’s totally fine and legitimate for stronger countries to strongarm weaker countries into capitulation and submission, all while putting their own claim on “following the law”. If you do not understand what’s so messed up here, I have nothing else to say to you.

The Rule OF Law is and should always be upheld with discretion, with a good understanding of its spirit instead of its letters, because its absolutism is only probably relevant for its time and not guaranteed to be timeless, unless the human society is held in stasis. Otherwise, and idk if you’ve even come to notice, it’s very easily for interested parties to overwhelm the meaning of the law and uphold them in their own fashion, and thus Rule BY Law.

And finally, to your last 2 paragraphs, I’d say hold your fucking horses right there. Nobody is convincing civilians to be up in arms and fight in another nation here in Canada. IDK where you’re even getting that from, and you seem so far radicalized that you appear to be rather extreme in how you even comprehend and interpret things. We’re talking about Japan re-arming themselves to fight for Taiwan here, and I am in no way encouraging the Japanese to do so. What I am doing is to sympathize with their situation and understand why they think that this is their way to ensure their own survival. I don’t care who the fuck you are, which country you’re from, or what your beliefs are, but if you can’t look at the situation that Japan is in and tell me they aren’t doing this for self protection, for a country that has literally given up arms for almost 80 fucking years, you either need to grow up and understand human politics, or you’re a naive tool for the CCP.

If you’re just here to be a tool, then I have wasted my breath on you, but I hope this message would still somehow make some sense to you, or to someone else. Peace out.

They aren’t defending Taiwan as their own land but as a foreign country whose sovereignty is in their interest to protect. They’d renegade on nothing. Keep that fire hose off your own mouth.

The riches that the Taiwanese have made are only part of the reason China wants the land. It’s a strategic position for China to take control of along the chain of islands that block their access to the Pacific, all of which are currently friendly to the US. It would allow them to further encircle Japan and South Korea, two countries that house large US military bases, and give them an upper hand in talks as they can easily blockade shipments going to the two countries, and both Japan and SK rely quite a bit on oil tankers coming from the South China Sea for their energy needs. This is why Japan has been super nervous about the recent developments related to Taiwan, not just because of a clear weakening in the will of the US to defend its allies.

I don’t know why you think I haven’t mentioned it’s advantages at all or is trying to paint me as not wanting to acknowledge “plainly obvious advantages”. I literally said that Tailwind is the industry’s current answer to working with CSS in a way that seems to work with the current and modern economic pressures. I have literally mentioned in my other comment that its advantage is that it’s as an easier to learn, easier to collab tool. Idk what else I’m supposed to say.

You were asked to say the benefits of Tailwind, but instead of saying what the clear benefits are, you are the one who chose to answer by saying that “many industry experts use it”. I thought it was a ridiculous reply, and so I chose to be ridiculous to draw parallels of your logic to justifying for the existence of fossil fuel companies. If you do not understand the concept of similies and hyperbole, I’m sorry I can’t help you there.

And you seem to fail to see the bigger picture of things and simply treated my other comment as a “I claim that this is the right way to go”. I do not claim that it is one, and is merely lamenting on the fact that there was, and emphasis here to help you read, what I think was a better way. If you’re going by the metric that economies are efficient if only things can be made quickly, then my comment is pointing out that you are simply trapped by dogma, and is merely being a part to toxic capitalism where it’s a rat race to the bottom of the barrel.

If you think CSS with the C is “slowing down development and is increasing complexity as well as potential for bugs and side effects”, then you are part of the problem. And no, I do not agree that people have “tried to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time”. What I see instead is that they have simply lived with it because we haven’t gotten to a point where we write SS without the C. Seriously, I still don’t understand that if virtually an entire industry just hates the cascade so much, why haven’t y’all just removed it?

I’m not sure if my message is getting across to you, because it seems like you are very much happy with the state of things and the direction it’s going at. And you don’t have to spend your energy talking to someone who’s clearly on the minority and losing side of the industry. I’m just some person who happens to like CSS with the C, and enjoy writing CSS so much as it allows me to so concisely describe what I want across an entire application, and is simply lamenting on the fact that we haven’t did much to improve literacy of CSS, thinking that better CSS literacy translates to better engineers. So save your breath and energy pal.

Doesn’t it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach?

That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence. You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it’s been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?

Please also see my other comment

https://vger.to/lemmy.ca/comment/20657420

IMO, the industry decided to take the wrong direction, which I would agree makes sense from an economics perspective, but man, all I see is short term gains over long term ones, where we would’ve been able to build better solutions than hacks upon hacks (not using that fully derogatorily tbh). We could’ve spent all that energy, money, and time to bettering CSS and improving education to help people understand the cascade and specificity, while building better, more computationally efficient solutions that would minimize our bundles better and make JS a lot tamer than it is.

But I’m blabbering.

That’s what I mean though, that the popular frameworks are made to fight the cascade.

Modern web development claims that apps aren’t documents and simply disregarded the cascade as an artifact of document-based design, but they’re entirely wrong IMO. The cascade is made for consistency and tempo of your websites, and that’s a universal design principle irrespective of whether you’re making a website, woodcrafting, pottery, or what have you. Tailwind itself claims to give devs the ability to be consistent, but we already have that, and it’s the cascade.

Managing the cascade is, understandably, non-trivial, especially in a large enough team. It requires discipline and a good understanding of what not to do, and can take time to practice and perfect. So I understand that in our crazy economic world where speed is everything, learning something new is treated as something that’s in the way, and so we churn out devs that aren’t proficient in CSS, and they then come to train other devs, who will also not be proficient in CSS. This all lowers the barrier of entry, which is good when looked at microscopically, but in the grand scheme of things, so much of our energy is put into fighting the cascade. Just think of all the styling solutions for CSS-in-JS frameworks that we’ve churned through in the last 10 years. Madness IMO, but economies gotta economize.

Edit: yeah sorry, I get really passionate about this topic

As someone who writes a lot of CSS, and actually like CSS (yeah, unheard of, I know; I’m some alien), Tailwind doesn’t just seem like it’s reinventing the wheel and wrapping over an existing language, which is weird when you think about those two being mentioned together, is also bad for other reasons:

• UserCSS becomes near impossible to use
• Web scraping becomes a gigantic mess; LLMs become the only viable solution, and let’s not even get started on how crazy that sounds
• Semantic HTML becomes difficult to verify and build upon due to the sheer amouns of TEXT (and if you go “But you can put your most commonly used declarations together in a class selector and use that!” then congratulations you almost just wrote CSS), and in relation to this…
• It encourages bad CSS practices and thus bad HTML practices, as if the terrible walls of text isn’t already difficult to debug when working for accessibility
• RIP traditional SEO, and thus RIP any small players who want to create and maintain their own search engine, and only large companies with a lot of resources can hire people to spend a fuck ton of time to scrape and index the web. SEO already has a ton of problems as it were, and Tailwind just adds a new dimension to the problem.

If the web industry as a whole could slow down and learn to live with the cascade (seriously, the cascade is your friend!), and stop demanding that we do CSS without the C, that’d be great.

Thanks for walking pass me standing on my soapbox that virtually nobody cares about.

I don’t claim it to be common practice, just saying that it exists. That said, it may be “niche” in the grand scheme of things, but by no means do I think it’s small and insignificant. If anything, such codebases are typically foundational libraries in the giant stack of cards most other software engineers build.

See also antirez’s article about code comments https://www.antirez.com/news/124 You’ll notice how some of the snippets would’ve easily failed your criteria.

I think comment ratio could be a fairly misleading metric. There are programs out there that requires a lot of context upfront that distills down to just a few lines of code, and especially those that are more academically interesting.

The genre for anything with a heavy cutscene amount is typically “Story rich”. Doesn’t tell you the ratio between cutscenes and action, but that’s messy to measure anyways.

If you wanna get pedantic and actually measure that ratio, you could start with a new kind of genre with something like 60S40A for 60% story 40% action and see if there’d be enough people who care enough to use the same labelling.

Otherwise, read some reviews?

Yo, you just reaffirmed my idea that I thought was too wild! I have to replace this old phone of mine soon cause the battery’s dying, but I guess this thing will have to stay up for a bit, or much, longer.

Please don’t remind me. Had a colleague with a senior title who just vibecoded on our CI pipeline and it ended up blocking deployments for half a day.

The fact that this is listed for fast-tracking, or even considered a candidate at all, is, frankly, disgusting.

But isn’t that the point? If governments would cut public services to feed their own beast now, why wouldn’t they do that if we nationalize these services, so that they can then sell to people something better?

That said, I actually did not know that the CEO at CP is also on the Purolator board. Why the hell was that even allowed in the first place?

This is going absolutely nowhere. I don’t know why you’re thinking that I think the current system is better. I’ve said that I don’t believe so. What I’m also saying is that I don’t believe that governments can make sure that we won’t be on the streets either.

And you’re throwing away my arguments and conveniently forgetting about them and essentially putting me up as some kind of convenient strawman for whatever you’re trying to say. Why wouldn’t a government kick a bunch of people out so that they can build that resort for people that they know would vote for them? A “large illegal immigrant population” is simply a convenient target down south for the fascists Republicunts to channel national anger at so that the people would vote for them. While Canada isn’t as polarized as the States is, and racial tensions aren’t as high, it does exist and isn’t something to dismiss, and given the right events, it could fan the flames. And it doesn’t have to be racial. It can be on nationalistic lines, and I can guarantee you that that sentiment is definitely on the rise.

I get it. The grocery businesses and telco business that we know of exist and are local players. That has more to say about our policies for businesses, that it allows for oligopolies to fester, but it’s a weak reason to go to the extent of full nationalization imo. IMO government should not allow a singular group of people to fully control almost every facet of an industry. But governments should not have the power to stamp out its own competitors, lest it becomes the very thing we don’t like seeing now in these private companies.

And while those are examples, there are also some that’s for the other side. While not a national company, the TTC is one such example at the city + provincial level: service degradation has continued on, disruptions have become increasingly frequent, the Eglinton Crosstown is still under construction after more than 10 years (though the private sector is also to blame on this end), Line 6 is only finally here after 10+ years as well, and even with these two lines, Toronto is nowhere near the level of accessibility you’d expect of a city it’s size outside of downtown core, and it literally hasn’t changed much for the last 100 years. While the TTC isn’t to be fully blamed for these woes (because of car-centric developments that have taken over the national psyche), if you listen to transit advocates talk about the TTC, you’ll hear a lot of frustrating episodes, e.g. having outdated, error-prone rail infrastructure and repeatedly refusing to upgrade them.

And then there’s Canada Post with all its episodes, sagas even, in recent years. They’ve repeatedly refused to both improve services and pay better wages, even as the CUPW continually suggested to the management to better use their abilities.

I think this should tell us that you can’t rely on either nationalization or privatization alone. Either way has a possibility of slipping into stagnation once they’ve reached some kind of steady state.

If you’re running an infrastructure that many need, you could just say no to abusers, just like a healthy business would do.

And I know the times we’re in, but it’s just so odd to assume that businesses that serve the country are all owned and controlled by foreign companies. Why can’t a local player be in that place?

Public alternatives are fine, but they’ve generally stagnated in terms of improving their services and offerings, because, and I absolutely hate that I agree with the capitalists here even though I’m looking at it differently, at some point in their lifetime, the stability that a government-funded company offers will attract people who seek that stability without understanding how to achieve long term stability (which is to constantly improvement, instead of preserving the status quo). Income for these companies eventually drop, and we end up having to keep them afloat with tax money. That’s not necessarily a bad thing cause not all public services need to be profitable, but it’s still desirable to have them fund most of their activities on their own.

For cloud, it’s why mentioned that the government should be as removed as possible from its operations. These sorts of services can easily contain a lot of sensitive information, and the government should be kept at a healthy gap away from that data. Government-funded, yes, but let there also be a more direct mechanism from more grassroots and local organizations as well.

Oh you won’t be bleed dry by a malicious government. You’d just have literally nowhere legal for you to go. It’d make what ICE is doing down south look tame; there’d be a lot more people who believe or is made to believe that you should gtfo.

And capitalists aren’t just bleeding us dry through land and land alone. Just look at, and I’m waving my hand violently, everything else.

Your proposition is to trade one extreme for another, and all I’m telling you is that it doesn’t work. Why are we trying to jump from one pit into another?

I see a lot of comments are proposing for the nationalization of whole industries, which is somewhat concerning. There needs to be some balance, not to fatten the checks of those billionaires, and not to make the government too powerful.

For example, instead of (re-)nationalizing CN, nationalize the tracks themselves. The government can lay down tracks for places that need to be reached, and companies can then run their trains on them. It’s no different from how roads are public really. Companies can then focus on serving section of the tracks for areas that they understand best. Of course, there will be cases where there’s a need to consider if the investment from the government is worth it, cause what if they laid the tracks but no one’s willing to take advantage of that? Well, they can let companies bid, and there’s no bidder, they can choose to not take on the project. Of course, there’s always the option for the government to have its own train company to serve certain areas.

For telcos, instead of nationalizing the entire vertical, nationalize cell towers and cable paths. Allow companies to build their own towers if they so desire, but the main draw is that different providers can rely on shared infrastructure, and none of this Robelus bullshit that we have right now. Cable paths is probably odd, but these sorts of technology get changed quite often. The government can still own some cables, allowing smaller players to take advantage of those, but it would level out the playing field by a lot.

For the Internet and whole businesses within it, having our own cloud infrastructure, or AWS alternative, would be best. People can then run whatever on those. There is, of course, a concern of the government not respecting people’s privacies, and so it needs to be run somewhat independent of the government, allowing the government to set directions but not what exactly to do; sort of Crown-corp-y if you will.

In all my examples, the idea is simply this: nationalize the stuff that serve as the basis for a particular service. Think roads instead of cars.