Not really. Google wants black people to buy their phones because a featured they developed works better for their skin tone. Should companies who make smaller handsets be barred from advertising to women?
Do you think black people striving for equality are looking for companies putting black people on their ads? They want equality, not their struggle to be washed away by bullshit empty posturing.
"Want to end racism? Stop talking about it. I'll stop calling you a white man if you stop calling me a black man."
Do you think that finally tuning their photo processing software to produce good results for people with darker skin tones (to match the good results they already had for lighter skin tones) is empty posturing?
> Do you think black people striving for equality are looking for companies putting black people on their ads?
Absolutely. How else would a person with attributes typically ignored know that a product was designed for them? Ethnic hair care products is another example. Do you think only white people should be in ads for hair care products for African Americans?
Check out IPFS, this is already happening in the NFT world. Have you noticed how all NFTs are high quality and not compressed to shit? That's because of the IPFS.
I'm familiar and it doesn't change this in any way because IPFS is not a magic want which provides infinite storage and bandwidth at no cost. Those have real costs and someone needs to pay for them.
Many NFTs reference third-party hosting services for this reason (that's the real service; the part on the blockchain is the expensive vanity link) and anyone using IPFS for real will need to pay for ongoing hosting if they want their content to remain available.
Part of what dictates this will be abuse: if you provide free hosting to strangers on the internet, they will exhaust your capacity and some will try to host material which violates copyright or other laws. Over time, anyone not getting paid to deal with that will stop offering free hosting to random strangers on the internet.
I saw it too, and IMO the ecosystem is better than ever now. It took a few years of stagnation for SF to really dig their hooks in, but everything is nice and integrated now.
“Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution,” he tweeted. “I'll happily provide video commentary.”[0] - Dick Costolo, former Twitter CEO
Context: he's not saying he'll start a revolution, he's saying one is coming regardless. And he doesn't want to be shot as a rich person. Maybe he also doesn't like how tech tends to ignore the consequences of the decisions they make.
And your knee-jerk response is to defend other parts of his statement? It’s a perfect example of leftism amok because it’s a common one I’ve increasingly heard over the past few years about the indifference or glee to rich people dying.
We can easily flip this into a right-wing statement and it will be highly disapproved of.
“Right wing nationalists will think your statements excuse leftist tendencies towards violence, and shoot your for this in an uprising. I’ll happily provide commentary.”
There are a tonne of tankies on the site. Some who claim Holodomor was fake, Tianmen square was an exaggeration and the DPRK/China are heroes, Fidel Castro was a benevolent dictator and that everyone who escaped his regime was a slave owner.
Here is the secret: most leftists don't like tankies. Ban them as well I say! I people want to defend Stalin's murderous regime then I don't want them there either. Appealing to some hypocrisy here isn't super useful since the large bulk of people who don't want fascists on their webforums also don't want tankies.
It's also so vague, it's useless. There's "tonnes of <literally any type of person>" on Twitter. No presented evidence/claims that the number of them (relative to anyone else you don't like/don't agree with) is causing an issue, or that Twitter has a structural problem that raises the voices of tankies.
Yeah. People do. They get a lot of RTs (not in the millions) but I have seen tweets with several thousand likes and shares. There are more psychos like anarchists and some other buzzwords that are popular nowadays etc... one of them even wrote a book saying rioting is good because all businesses are inherently promoting white supremacy. I am not even joking. This article on The Atlantic covered the sheer lunacy of the person.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/there-no-d...
CSS Modules didn't become the default way to go until sometime in 2016. Before that point people were still stumbling over how to manage their CSS in a component-oriented fashion, and it was only once that happened did React "win".
CS Modules are still not the "default", this space is still up in the air. There's CSS-in-JS (like styled-components or Emotion), Sass, plain CSS, etc.
More important to my point, back in 2015/early 2016 and before, you more likely than not had to somehow manually include the CSS for a given component library into your page. Right about the same time CSS Modules got popular, the CSS from libraries started getting included automatically in the compiled CSS file (whether by way of CSS Modules or something else that at least doesn't conflict with it).
I remember this part of the timeline pretty distinctly because late 2015 is when we started a new project in React, and struggled with how to reliably deal with CSS for several months.
