It's noteworthy for sure, however I am more annoyed by how it is reported. It was always like that for sure, however when the same medium proclaims being the arbiter of truth (fact checkers) I get really disgusted.
> I’m bored of Netflix. They have simply gone the assembly line direction instead of the direction of art, at least for some big niches. For example, every True Crime docuseries on Netflix is the same crap.
My benchmark for this genre is Forensic Files. I have yet to find another one that is this concise and informative.
> That's very difficult to say, actually; the Moskova was sunk with them after all, but the bigger issue is the abhorrent and indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations by the Russians. Fields with farmers and homes and hospitals with civilians are not of military importance. And yet, Russia keeps shooting them.
According to western media.
> The truth is Putin's Kremlin is to blame for this wide-spread shortage
Yeah that would be easy, however it's not as cut and dry (it rarely is). You could as easily blame Zelenskyy for killing thousands of east Ukrainians prior. And then their is the coup d'état in 2014 as well and the constant provocations of the NATO in general. So I am not so sure that Putin's Kremlin alone is to blame.
In Germany this is called "Gratismut" (gratis bravery). It's the current thing to hate Russia, so they don't lose anything by doing a passionate write-up about it. McDonald's also wants to convince you that they have any values, but in reality they have no problem with horrendous human rights violations in other countries.
I disagree that physical violence is justified for any anonymous conversation however hateful it might be. If it is not anonymous then there are things like slander where things get more blurry, however I am not a strong proponent of vigilante justice, so I would not call it just either.
Yeah, however that is not what happens if you just let that behavior described above slide. Punching someone because they said something to you is usually wrong especially if they don't even know each other (so it can't be personal, really).
Which means the internet is the better place to be for any person. The problem is usually if one side is not anonymous, then it's different, otherwise anything is fair game in regards to discussions I think, but maybe you find a good counter example.
> It's impossible to convince most people of even the most obvious truths.
You should maybe ask yourself why you need to convince them.
> The wisest path is to fake agreement, keep your thoughts for yourself and move away ASAP.
That's not wise, that's dishonest to the other person and to yourself. The last part (avoiding the other person) is obviously a completely valid option, but only one of several.
I agree with that assessment. Which means it should come as no surprise to anyone, if people are harsher online to people they literally do not know. It's not nice, but the alternative is also not very pleasant, which is real life and the constant misuse of status and lack of anonymity. Although it kind of creeped up to the internet as well.
> It's primarily the labor-heavy working-class white male (in the white male demographic) that has been brutalized by changes in the US and global economy. They have been left behind to drown in a pool of fentanyl.
That sounds like most people are actually more negatively affected by the economy compared to decades prior.
As far as I know you can't sensibly OD on LSD for example. It doesn't really cause addiction and to OD you need to take something like 100x the effective dose.However the psychosis danger would still be a valid concern ("rolling a dice" puts it quite nicely)
And in addition to that they also removed a lot of rail lines, especially goods traffic. It would've been a boon to have fewer trucks on the motorway and probably better for the environment.
> Would you not accept that African-Americans might be victims of circumstances?
I don't introduce new standards for them. If you want to mitigate racism, hold them accountable for their actions and don't act like people with a different skin tone can take no responsibility.
This is disingenious at best. Looking at the population ratio vs killing makes no sense whatsoever. In that case just use that to justify why men are more often subject to police violence than women. We all know why, but with race there may be no differences ... but there are.
In the case of race you can't just ignore that black people do roughly 50% of violent crimes (just look at arson, don't even try to excuse it) and make up 25% of the lethal shootings with police.
It's also obvious why the racism is the other way around than some people make it out to be. Every police officer thinks twice to shoot on someone with dark skin because of the media coverage that can and often does take place. With killing white people, even if unjust this is rarely if ever a headline (except you can spin it, like when he helped a PoC).
That sounds like hybris. I am not disagreeing that you can alter it to a degree, but it is certainly not something you choose. Just think about how you feel when you are ill and now think of people with allergies for example, that can always feel ill depending on circumstances.
These limits exist always and they are different from person to person and these limits are not always set by (obvious) illnesses, but by the body in general.
> Maybe that's the thing. More coherence might be nicer, yes. But it might also not make UIs easier to use. Maybe sqeezing apps into a tight framework of UI coherence, makes the overall appearance of what's on the screen more appealing but at the same time loose usability.
It's a balancing act and you can screw up in either direction. What's clear is that limiting options and limiting depth is at a certain point really better from a UX standpoint - and I'd say old Windows toolkits are an example. It doesn't even mean there is missing anything, but that it is structured differently.
> Think of special applications like technical ones (Blender) or office (Thunderbird, LibreOffice) and also simple ones like a notepad application. Now try to find a common set of UI elements to use for all of them. What you'll probably get, is an OK notepad but a disturbingly bloated Blender.
Neither of these apps would have a problem with a GUI framework/toolkit per se. It's more an implementation detail of the specific frameworks/toolkits and the apps in question (also consider the time when they were founded).