Why wouldn’t it have been that in that decade? The concept of DEI (whether or not it was specifically called as such) has been around at least far back as the 1980s. I think it actually goes back even to the 1960s.
I watched the director’s cut again last week, and I don’t see this at all. The Leon character explicitly refuses Mathilda’s… well they’re not even propositions are they.
Ok. I'm not convinced at this point, because I don't know how Besson allegedly wanted the scenes to be filmed. And that isn't to say I approve of Luc Besson's choices in his personal life — I find the idea of a romance between a 32 year old and a 15 year old unacceptable. Whether there are parallels between his private life and his artistic expression, I am unwilling to speculate on.
I’d tweak it to say that a foolish consistency is the absolute worst design principle. All things being equal, consistency is a good thing, but it sometimes gets prioritized to the point of absurdity and becomes counterproductive.
I think the core issue here is that consistency bounds are arbitrary and some people tend to push to much on these. Finding the middle is hard and is political. Arguing with UX or QA whether previously unrelated features on different screens should behave the same is exhausting. That's why I prefer small projects where I am the only customer or all users are extremely aligned (internal developer tooling).
It definitely isn’t. It’s good in many contexts, but zealous adherence to some pithy design principle without consideration is bad engineering and bad design.
The article makes no sense to me. The original verge article wants X off the app store. This article says Apple isn't powerful to confront Trump, seemingly as an excuse for why they're leaving X on the store, and then goes on to say that, uh, Apple should kick X off the store.
Not only do apple and Google have a huge amount of power, but all anyone wants is for X off the app store, and apparently even this author agrees they're powerful enough for that.
So i don't see how Cook and Pichai are, in fact, anything but cowards
I am ignorant and I don't know how to quantify any of these things, but it just seems strange to me that entities accounting for such a large part of the US economy have no leverage over 47.
A topic in the news lately is the upcoming midterm elections. Could they not threaten him with an aggressive informational warfare type of campaign? After all, he benefitted from the coordinated influence campaign that russia undertook during the 2016 elections.
They have some leverage over his party politically or him as a candidate, but as a sitting president (especially one as unhinged as he is), his power is absurd.
Apple and Googles revenue combine to around 3% of US GDP (substantial!), but it’s not like they would threaten to take that elsewhere or stop selling in the US or something. The ways they can “hurt” Trump hurt them and the rest of the country also. But Trump can do targeted damage to them across many avenues with a stroke of the pen (or even a Tweet)
Could you add substance here? The egregious corruption in the current US administration is something we are all witnessing in real time. This is not rhetoric.
Do you believe that a significant proportion of native English speakers support the idea of imperialistic invasion and occupation, and the rape and torture of women and children?
Which war? The Iraq War started with around 62% support. When the US started its involvement in the Korean War (one of the biggest mass atrocities we'd carried out since, well, about 5 years earlier when we atom bombed Japan...), around 78% supported it. Around 71% of Americans supported a large scale troop invasion of Afghanistan when it started.
Honestly, even for the wars with bad public perception, like Vietnam, it was mostly because Americans were tired of our guys being drafted just to be turned into dogfood on the other side of the world, not because we were occupying and brutalizing them.
I think the essence of my question is what did "support" look like here?
I can empathise with the position that the invasion of Iraq was warranted (which is not to say that I agree with it), in the context of the September 11 attacks. What I haven't seen is any popular support for the slaughter of civilians or the annexation of territory — there is no grand narrative that the USA is actually liberating its historical lands in Iraq. I think the support was conditional, and based on claims that later collapsed. The end goal was withdrawal after regime change.
What I haven't seen is any analogue to egregious instances like this[0], of which there are many in russia's war against Ukraine.
You're ignoring the mass atrocities committed by both sides in the Donbas throughout much of the 2010s that provided easy propaganda to achieve the same outcomes as the Iraq War propaganda.
I have another example of a "war" carried out recently with overwhelming support in its nation and in the US (initially) due to rapid propaganda around an attack that was likely intentionally intensified in effect by things like moving civilian events next to a military target the day before. But I won't post that one lol
Why wouldn’t it have been that in that decade? The concept of DEI (whether or not it was specifically called as such) has been around at least far back as the 1980s. I think it actually goes back even to the 1960s.
reply