I read through your link, it's a cleverly written piece with very little to support its conclusions.
> Empirical studies of immigration’s effect on national economies confirm the general impact shown in the third chart. A review by David Card in 2007 concluded that “more than two decades of research on the local labor market impacts of immigration have reached a near consensus that increased immigration has a small but discernible negative effect on the relative (emphasis in original) wages of low-skilled native workers” but also a small, positive overall effect.
So in effect, more or less neutral, then?
> In the face of the reality that average wage levels are not negatively affected, one counterpoint is that the impact differs among skill levels (i.e., that low-skill migrants depress wages for native low-skill workers)
So that means, that low skill immigration which is the bigger chunk of all immigration, is at best neutral and most likely hurts wages? It is the high skill immigration which helps.
> National and even state economies are much more dynamic than simple theory
Just asserts a wishful thinking and concludes on this, doesn't really put any numbers to support this.
What is the numerical upper limit to your goodwill?
And what about the current citizens who are relatively poorer off because off high number of low skilled new immigrant arrivals? Does a nation not owe more to its current citizens?
I'm not sure why you're avoiding talking about the role of Pakistan in creating the whole conflict in Kashmir. Pakistan invented out of the whole cloth an armed struggle aspect to the Kashmir situation.
It's extremely convenient on your part to talk pointwise all the Pakistani talking points and yet avoid talking about the 90% causative factor in this entire mess.
Do you honestly believe that Kashmir would in reality ever exist as an independent country when it is such a strategic piece of land between 3 nuclear powers?
If not, Pakistan's argument about "Independence" of Kashmir is rendered moot because it is a roundabout way of annexing Kashmir for itself.
If we understand the above, the status quo of Kashmir with India doesn't seem so bad for Kashmiri minorities who have been systematically driven out/converted/executed in the PoK region right from the time of Pakistani occupation.
And these here are the cold hard facts instead of waxing hypothetically.
In that case, they should have deprecated the "function(){}" notation or at least made it such that arrow function doesn't overlap it.
The current scene is that most people don't know what the real difference between arrow and function notations and this leads to a lot more number of bugs than if they weren't this overlapping. Overall, my point is, this just leads to poor ergonomics and you'll have a larger number of avoidable bugs.
At this point, I'm convinced that Javascript is basically a jobs creation program.
We go on adding fancy new syntax for little or no gain. The whole arrow function notation, for example, buys nothing new compared to the old notation of writing "function(....){}" other than appearing to keep up with functional fashion of the times.
Similarly, python which was resistant to the idea of 20 ways to do the same thing, also seems to be going in the direction of crazy things like the "walrus" operator which seems to be increasing the cognitive load by being a little more terse while not solving any fundamental issues.
Nothing wrong with functional paradigm, but extra syntax should only be added when it brings something substantial valuable to the table.
Also, features should be removed just as aggressively as they are added, otherwise you end up with C++ where you need less of a programmer to be able to tell what a given expression will do and more of a compiler grammar lawyer who can unmangle the legalese.
Because a web-app is the only way you can monetize a desktop app like functionality in 2019.
Linux desktop toolkits and dev environment utterly sucks.
You'll have to develop 3 different codebases for Win, Mac and Linux.
Worse still, you'll have to reinvent app updates technology if you go with Qt or will be tied into a different updating technology and still have to deal with piracy problems.
> if you can do things in a native desktop app, you're almost always better off than with a browser based solution
The reason fewer and fewer people are doing this are more to do with funding. So if I were to build software today, I'd instantly go with web-apps so that I can monetize them as much as I want.
Web app software has zero issues with piracy and in built regular cash flow model which everyone wants.
Find a way to fund desktop apps and make them as easy to build like web apps and they'll be vogue again.
The real reason in vast majority of cases, why most of our software seems slow is not because someone used Javascript instead of Win32 C or something else programming language related. The real driver of slowness are the network requests for everything.
You could build your software in assembly but if each action has to hit a rest endpoint, the network request will utterly dwarf anything else happening locally.
So as more and more software moves to browser as web-apps this slowness is unavoidable.
Consider how more quicker and responsive Thunderbird feels to using gmail, a web-app.