The following may seem frivolous and/or uncharitable but I think you would find them hard to disagree with:
- booting people off platforms is a "bad idea" which you wish to "suppress".
- booting people off platforms shines a light on their "bad ideas"
I'm sympathetic to the spirit of your comment, but I think Mr Icke has plenty of other ways to publish his ideas, and I don't believe youtube is suppressing them in a way that necessitates suppression of theirs.
> booting people off platforms is a "bad idea" which you wish to "suppress".
Not censoring an idea and arguing that an idea should not be implemented are not equivalent.
> booting people off platforms shines a light on their "bad ideas"
If this is true, i.e. reporting of the censorship increases the visibility of the bad idea, then it completely destroys the pro-censorship argument that it reduces the visibility of bad ideas. It would also immediately cease to be true if censorship ever became uncontroversial, in which case you couldn't claim that it's giving the allegedly bad idea a chance at a fair debate.
> I'm sympathetic to the spirit of your comment, but I think Mr Icke has plenty of other ways to publish his ideas, and I don't believe youtube is suppressing them in a way that necessitates suppression of theirs.
Is somebody suggesting that YouTube should be prohibited from creating and distributing their own videos?
> Not censoring an idea and arguing that an idea should not be implemented are not equivalent.
I'm not sure this is correct, but I'm willing to be convinced if you can expand a little more. I guess I see it as censoring the act of censoring.
> If this is true, i.e. reporting of the censorship increases the visibility of the bad idea, then it completely destroys the pro-censorship argument that it reduces the visibility of bad ideas. It would also immediately cease to be true if censorship ever became uncontroversial, in which case you couldn't claim that it's giving the allegedly bad idea a chance at a fair debate.
In this case, it is true. But youtube censorship is not equivalent to societal censorship, it just signals that youtube does not endorse Icke's ideas and does not wish to publish them, but people can still evaluate them somewhere else.
> Is somebody suggesting that YouTube should be prohibited from creating and distributing their own videos?
No, the suggestion is they should not be allowed to write their own terms and enforce them.
> I'm not sure this is correct, but I'm willing to be convinced if you can expand a little more. I guess I see it as censoring the act of censoring.
Censorship applies to information. Restricting information can't be justified because it's by definition impossible for the public to evaluate whether what's being censored is appropriate when it gets taken down and they can't see it. "Censoring the act of censoring" doesn't have any such problem -- if YouTube was prohibited from censoring videos, they can do it even when everybody has full knowledge that they're operating under that constraint.
They could even run a banner at the top of videos they don't like that says "YouTube things this is wrong" and link to their own video explaining how, and that wouldn't be censorship. But you don't need to take down somebody else's videos to do that. It's in fact better if you don't, because then more of the people who come to see the video you think is wrong will see the message explaining why you think it's wrong, instead of going somewhere else where there is only the alleged misinformation.
> But youtube censorship is not equivalent to societal censorship, it just signals that youtube does not endorse Icke's ideas and does not wish to publish them, but people can still evaluate them somewhere else.
That would be fine so long as the somewhere else is equally prominent, but YouTube is too big for there to be any such place. If you're a monopoly/oligopoly then you ought to be a common carrier. If they really wanted out of that they could always break themselves up.
> No, the suggestion is they should not be allowed to write their own terms and enforce them.
Enforcing terms as a monopoly is effectively legislating, so they should follow the same rules as the government.
A web service can provide a schema similar to a header file to define its API but there is no "standard" format for this schema, nor is there a standard location to look for such a thing.
You can of course provide your own schema. This tool lets you design an API for a web service in a popular schema format called OpenAPI.
I totally understand people's preference to use Django templates wherever possible, and only sprinkle in more frontend focused stuff when needed, but personally, I would rather just write the whole frontend in React or Vue.
This is probably partly due to the fact I find working with django rest framework serializers / views to be much nicer than django forms / views.
I think what puts most people off is the default requirement to go all-in and create an SPA with global state management and client-side managed routing, but this isn't actually necessary.
I have found incorporating Django with https://inertiajs.com to be a pretty solid alternative. I can write the whole frontend in React, and the backend in Django rest framework, but everything is still page based, so I don't require redux or any other kind of global state, just use the inertia utils to make page transitions.
NextJS is another alternative. To talk to a (django) API you need to go through getStaticProps and getServerSideProps which, depending on the location of your API server, can be a little slow, but you get pre-rendered HTML and page based routing so again no global state management required.
NextJS is another alternative. To talk to a (django) API you need to go through getStaticProps and getServerSideProps which, depending on the location of your API server, can be a little slow, but you get pre-rendered HTML and page based routing so again no global state management required.
The problem with this approach is that you will need to manage another server process(nodejs) besides django for server-side rendering with nextjs.
Interesting, inertiajs looks similar to turbolinks/stimulus but instead of using html it uses js components. With nextjs you will have to manage another routing layer though?
>I think what puts most people off is the default requirement to go all-in and create an SPA with global state management and client-side managed routing, but this isn't actually necessary.
There's also the benefit of being able to lean on Django patterns for sessions.
Since inertia runs in the same session context as your django app you can use django sessions as you would in a standard django app - in fact this is the goal of inertia. This even works with a django rest framework API
I created my own adapter for rest framework specifically. Currently trying to extract it from my project into its own library. Will publish to pypi when it’s ready. Repo[1] if you want to see the approach. Also, there is a fork of inertia-django[2] that has a reference implementation of PingCRM[3]
No, you just create a new card component and adjust the tailwind classes on it.
Or, if it is a minor change, then conditionally include / exclude a small subset of tailwind classes.
The point is to not write your own CSS, you only use tailwind classes. In this way you can look at the template for each of your components and reason about / edit their style and layout easily.
What about mentally ill people? People on medication that make them groggy? People who are drunk in their own home? People who are exhausted from a huge week at work? Children? Elderly?
People cannot reasonably be expected to “stay calm” at a moments notice. That is completely unreasonable.
Special cases make bad rules. Seat belts make you safer... but not if your car gets crushed between two semis. That doesn't mean seat belts are pointless, just that they don't work in that case.
Moving deliberately and keeping your hands visible around police, particularly if they seem to think you're dangerous, is a good way to stay as safe as you can, and will put them less on edge in the encounter. You want that. In a dangerous situation, you want everyone as calm as possible.
Will it always work? Of course not. Maybe you're drunk or high. Maybe you're insane. Maybe you panicked in spite of yourself. Whatever. Hopefully in that situation one of the other protections will work for you.
Wear ya damn seatbelt. Not because it always works, but because sometimes it's the only thing that saves your life.
Safety is about tradeoffs and incremental improvements, not perfect solutions. If there really is a murderer in the house, we want police to be aggressive. If it's a hoax, we want them to be cautious. But expecting them to magically know which situation it is isn't a practical solution. Making it really obvious that you aren't a tactical threat is a practical way to make the situation safer. ER!
Obviously the whole situation is super dangerous and the blame rests almost entirely with the hoaxer.
But with that said, I think it is practical and reasonable to talk about the best way to surrender safely and avoid a misunderstanding in a situation like that. It won't work in every case, but it should generally work and could improve the situation.
and it's not necessarily just about "stay calm". if surrounded, any movement at all could be interpreted by someone (who can only see one side of things) as potentially threatening.
The other solution is to have mixed representation where a portion of the seats represent districts and the rest are allocated to match the proportions voted for by the state. In this case each voter gets 2 votes: 1 for their district and 1 for a party.
It has some limitations but mostly it was useful to learn that google app scripts are a thing.