Would love to know which cultures are mature and which aren’t, just so I can keep it in mind when I’m deciding how much I have to push rules and regulations onto users from different cultures.
It's a very delicate issue to put in practice, because as a business you rarely want to price discriminate along cultural lines. But for example, when dealing with customers from some countries, you know that they will demand the best product or service and don't mind paying through the nose for it. While for some other countries they mainly want to pay as little as possible and don't expect much. Americans for example are big spenders and are used to be very well treated by businesses as customers. Europeans live in a mixed economy, where what they spend has little correlation to customer experience. In Europe you can get some great benefits for a low or no price, due to government subsidies or nationalization. You can also be treated like garbage by a company, even though you are a high spending customer.
The easiest way to beat competition in Europe is to just train your staff for a couple of days to be friendly and give nice service. Because nobody else does that.
This is neat - maybe move the example section higher up; it looks great and gives a much better idea of what the system looks like visually, which to me is key in node-based envs.
I thought the article was going to go in a totally different direction and advocate for a return to simpler tools and the importance of content over tool obsession. I mean, who actually cares if you use React for your blog? If the content is good enough and you’re not fixated on proselytizing the framework, does it even really matter to anyone?
It’s not really an article is it? It’s more like a long twitter post about how having to use react and tailwind sucks. Which is weird because as you point out, you don’t have to use either.
I’d also argue that you’ll still need to know how CSS works even if you’re using tailwind. It’s still CSS it’s just that you don’t have to build everything yourself, but you do have to know how it works.
I thought the OP said the opposite: meanies on the web are calling you a bad person for using React and Tailwind when all you wanted to do was create something.
Anyhow, from my standpoint I just like to be able to make sense of something when I look at its source, and I like it not to freak out because I have a chrome extension or two.
I care. Simple text should stay simple, and should be readable without a 10 mile high abstraction layer. A blog is about text. I despise blog platforms which make JavaScript a requirement (React), which is just a totally silly approach.
So, do you care because of:
a) Load times?
b) Accessibility on different devices?
c) Philosophical grounds?
Because based on what you're saying (the 10 mile high abstraction level), it's about developer experience, which is not about text?
Text being what the end-user will ultimately see despite the underlying framework being React or a guy manually typing out the thing over TCP on every request.
Don't get me wrong, I despise it as much as you do, but I think it's important to recognize that ultimately the hate is only valid in the real world if it's about the user and not the developer experience.
Well, a) is a given, everyone cares about load times, even those that dont have the technical competency to name the phenomenon. And for me, personally, I guess its b and c. I am blind, so I do care about accessibility. However, I am also a old-time Linux command-line guy, from the 90s. I actually like Lynx, the load time and the simplicity, and the resource usage. If in my world a site could load in lynx (its all just about text) and it doesn't because of silly javascript framework, a kitten gets skinned and dies a horrible death.
You might consider merging the landing page with the "features" page - it takes a second or two to realize there's nothing to really see when you first get to the page, and you have to look around to kind of get a feel for what the thing really is. Pretty cool otherwise.
My point is that a lot of people are try to frame it as 'my side is holier than yours' (no pun on the holier), leading to such action on wikipedia supposedly taking its roots on a moral superiority of the losing side.
Whereas it's just two group fighting for some absurd reason (religion / race / language pick one) and territory and the losing side would do the same to the winning side if it was capable of.
It's no different that any war in the past in europe or africa. 'Complexity' is an illusion.
I agree with you in a very broad sense, but I also feel that stripping an issue of its complexity results in apathetic or impossible stances. Where do you even start to craft solutions when this is your understanding of the matter?
Yes, “they” might be fighting for absurd reasons but everyone does, to one extent or another. At some point there has to be a concerted effort to minimize casualties and suffering, and that effort usually comes hand in hand with picking a side - as long as your goal is a reduction in harm and violence, that side is often the weakest (in many senses). But pick any side for all I care, if your intentions are holistically sane.
This is inherently a political effort, one that necessitates impartiality in order to sway public opinion, political weight, budgets, etc. And so these weird “holier than thou” moments arise - yes, sometimes for the sole sake of claiming superiority, but more often than not because “impartial” action is necessary to move the issue forward.
Mind you I don’t agree with Wikipedia on this one, given its nature, but still - embrace the hypercomplexity and patterns and nuance will both emerge and you’ll have something to work with, at the risk of maybe realizing that often to play a part in reality is to pick a side, even if it’s somewhere on the spectrum between two insane positions.
"Where do you even start to craft solutions when this is your understanding of the matter?"
I'm not exactly a specialist but to me you just start by looking how similar conflicts resolved. It's either:
-People massively destroy each other that they tired of it and agree on some country boundaries (Europe).
-People learn to coexist each other in the same land / country and possibly forget their differences with time (Lebanon / France & Regional Identities).
-One side genocides / expels the other / apartheid in between (Tatars, South Africa).
And here basically:
- 1 is not really possible since Israel is basically too powerful and can endlessly bully the other side. Also there's no political power currently for this in israel: Rabin who promoted a two-state solutions was shot and replaced by Netanyahu & co who are actively undermining against a palestinian state (it's their public stance).
so there are two left:
- 2 is the 'ideal' outcome happen and i'd wish for but you would need to remove *all* the extremists and the thousand years of religions magically so yeah.
- 3 is what netanyahu and other religious guys are advocating, and likely will happen if you ask me considering the raw military and political support they have from the US.
Personally i'd avocate for 2 in the name of peace. It would start by having western govs labeling israeli gov as 'extremist' and 'supremacist' (which is starting). But then without a counter power in military terms I think they will still do whatever they want.
A similar, and fantastic resource is the book Morphing Architecture [1].
A while back I made an interactive REPL for the book, building out it's DSL, where you can play with the different examples interactively [2]. From what I can tell, a lot of the examples overlap.
