Subscript5676

You're impossible. You do not understand the essence of text and would very much prefer to read them in the worst way possible, and thus fall back on strict absolutism of the law. I cannot help you, and would very much suggest you seek help and therapy. Best of luck to you.

This is such a keyboard warrior moment here with so little brain cells involved in the actual reasoning, and I can see that you're clearly trying to make use of the general anti-separatist sentiment here in Canada to rile people up that I find it almost pointless to reply to you. If you think that by simply listing some legitimate sources, you'd have the upper hand in an argument, you'd be dead wrong.

First off, while i certainly oppose Alberta's separating from Canada, if they make a legit case to show that the majority of their citizens are in support of that, I don't see why they can't just separate. Heck, any province can do that if they want to through legitimate means. Let's freaking talk about it.

Secondly, The Rule of Law is important, but it is not absolute. The Law has many limits, and heck, it even changes over time. Nothing that changes over time can be absolute; that's just contradictory.

Further, the Rule OF Law is something that is implemented, and good lawyers are trained to understand and uphold the "spirit" of the law, not the exact stipulations of it, which often leaves a lot of details unspecified or vague. And the Law isn't always updated in a timely manner to answer every complication or conflict in human society; that is practically impossible and untenable. In the case of China and Taiwan, let's say I forgive you to have very conveniently acknowledged the PRC as the sole owner of the name "China" while ignoring the ROC's claim over the name, and thus conveniently claiming that Taiwan should simply be treated as the land that the PRC has sovereigty over. The argument over who should be the legitimate receipient of the benefits from the aigned signed Treaty of San Francisco is irrelevant due to the civil war that's happened in China later on. Both parties are technically, or should I say, legally, at war with each other ever since. And if you really want to argue about that one dumb treated, well, there the damn Treaty of San Francisco itself doesn't legitimize either the PRC or ROC as the government of China. So bringing this up is moot, and, frankly, it just tells me what contents you've been fed with.

Now onto the where the limits of the law comes in. If we simply follow the letters of the law, oh boy do we have some fun situations that'd happen. So many darn countries would simply not exist if we simply follow it to the letter. France could've forever denied having signed a treaty with England to easily legitimate the UK as we know it, or, back in those days, apply enough pressure militarily and economically to the England to supress its people's desires to declare their own independence. This is what we see today with China; the people of Taiwan has repeatedly showed a desire to declare their own independence from the war, only to be threatened by China with military and economic force. While the Law certainly isn't under China's control, if we simply go by your wat of following the law to the dot, then you are simply ruling BY Law while claiming that this is the Rule OF Law, while simultaneously acknowleging thar it's totally fine and legitimate for stronger countries to strongarm weaker countries into capitulation and submission, all while putting their own claim on "following the law". If you do not understand what's so messed up here, I have nothing else to say to you.

The Rule OF Law is and should always be upheld with discretion, with a good understanding of its spirit instead of its letters, because its absolutism is only probably relevant for its time and not guaranteed to be timeless, unless the human society is held in stasis. Otherwise, and idk if you've even come to notice, it's very easily for interested parties to overwhelm the meaning of the law and uphold them in their own fashion, and thus Rule BY Law.

And finally, to your last 2 paragraphs, I'd say hold your fucking horses right there. Nobody is convincing civilians to be up in arms and fight in another nation here in Canada. IDK where you're even getting that from, and you seem so far radicalized that you appear to be rather extreme in how you even comprehend and interpret things. We're talking about Japan re-arming themselves to fight for Taiwan here, and I am in no way encouraging the Japanese to do so. What I am doing is to sympathize with their situation and understand why they think that this is their way to ensure their own survival. I don't care who the fuck you are, which country you're from, or what your beliefs are, but if you can't look at the situation that Japan is in and tell me they aren't doing this for self protection, for a country that has literally given up arms for almost 80 fucking years, you either need to grow up and understand human politics, or you're a naive tool for the CCP.

If you're just here to be a tool, then I have wasted my breath on you, but I hope this message would still somehow make some sense to you, or to someone else. Peace out.

They aren't defending Taiwan as their own land but as a foreign country whose sovereignty is in their interest to protect. They'd renegade on nothing. Keep that fire hose off your own mouth.

The riches that the Taiwanese have made are only part of the reason China wants the land. It's a strategic position for China to take control of along the chain of islands that block their access to the Pacific, all of which are currently friendly to the US. It would allow them to further encircle Japan and South Korea, two countries that house large US military bases, and give them an upper hand in talks as they can easily blockade shipments going to the two countries, and both Japan and SK rely quite a bit on oil tankers coming from the South China Sea for their energy needs. This is why Japan has been super nervous about the recent developments related to Taiwan, not just because of a clear weakening in the will of the US to defend its allies.

There are dozens of us. Dozens!

Haven't read the article yet, but oh idk, oil, clear erosion of the USA's sphere of influence by their hands, and potentially an ally that would help pincer the States in case of a war? The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

What the Japanese have observed is what I'm seeing too. China is using every tool in the shed to try to establish itself as a superpower at the expense of others.

China will use international platforms to berate others for things that they're happy to do themselves, regardless if others call them out on their hypocrisy. They'll cry to the UN when nations that they don't yet have great leverage over slaps them on the hand near their backyard, like when their dangerous ships get confiscated.

They are pouring money into developing nations like Pakistan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and have been trying to do the same with many other Southeast Asian countries, while simultaneously getting in a conflicts with them over the South China Sea. This seems contradicting, but my take is that their goal is to secure their trade route from being blockaded in case of a more heated conflict, e.g. a war. They may be building out roads and highways in their Belt & Road Initiative, but maritime trade is still the most cost-effective option, and it would be terrible to be cut off from that, or if they need to make large detours.

Coming back on topic, I don't like the fact that there are nations with more saying at any given international platform, be it the US, China, or Japan, be it because of whatever reason. But it also says something about these platforms, either that they haven't scrutized themselves sufficiently, or that even Japan have come to think that the UN has failed in its non-partisaness that they're taking matters into their own hands.

This timeline sucks.

Agree with the geographic take. China is trying its imperial powers in a way where they choose their own enemies. They also have maritime disputes with SEA in areas where their supplies would come from, in an attempt to seize control of their own lifelines. They've also been pumping money into various countries in the SEA despite the conflict to gain soft power over them, so that a blockade of the Straits of Malacca would be less likely to happen in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. Of course, they continue to build out other avenues to reduce if not move their reliance on such chokepoints, Myanmar and Pakistan being prime examples, aside from their whole Belt and Road Initiative.

Back to Taiwan though, TSMC is still the leading semiconductor company that leads everyone else by a far margin, and if it's under the control of one country and they deny access of other countries to it, they would be able to gain technological supremacy in a few years, provided that they continue to guard their secrets from spies, which, to be fair, will definitely intensify in such a world. TSMC's plans, though, is that in the event of an invasion, they will destroy their fabs.

I don't know why you think I haven't mentioned it's advantages at all or is trying to paint me as not wanting to acknowledge "plainly obvious advantages". I literally said that Tailwind is the industry's current answer to working with CSS in a way that seems to work with the current and modern economic pressures. I have literally mentioned in my other comment that its advantage is that it's as an easier to learn, easier to collab tool. Idk what else I'm supposed to say.

You were asked to say the benefits of Tailwind, but instead of saying what the clear benefits are, you are the one who chose to answer by saying that "many industry experts use it". I thought it was a ridiculous reply, and so I chose to be ridiculous to draw parallels of your logic to justifying for the existence of fossil fuel companies. If you do not understand the concept of similies and hyperbole, I'm sorry I can't help you there.

And you seem to fail to see the bigger picture of things and simply treated my other comment as a "I claim that this is the right way to go". I do not claim that it is one, and is merely lamenting on the fact that there was, and emphasis here to help you read, what I think was a better way. If you're going by the metric that economies are efficient if only things can be made quickly, then my comment is pointing out that you are simply trapped by dogma, and is merely being a part to toxic capitalism where it's a rat race to the bottom of the barrel.

If you think CSS with the C is "slowing down development and is increasing complexity as well as potential for bugs and side effects", then you are part of the problem. And no, I do not agree that people have "tried to embrace the cascade for a long, long, long time". What I see instead is that they have simply lived with it because we haven't gotten to a point where we write SS without the C. Seriously, I still don't understand that if virtually an entire industry just hates the cascade so much, why haven't y'all just removed it?

I'm not sure if my message is getting across to you, because it seems like you are very much happy with the state of things and the direction it's going at. And you don't have to spend your energy talking to someone who's clearly on the minority and losing side of the industry. I'm just some person who happens to like CSS with the C, and enjoy writing CSS so much as it allows me to so concisely describe what I want across an entire application, and is simply lamenting on the fact that we haven't did much to improve literacy of CSS, thinking that better CSS literacy translates to better engineers. So save your breath and energy pal.

Doesn't it give you pause that many very experienced Frontend & CSS developers see objective advantages in Tailwinds utility class approach?

That is not a good enough reason to justify its existence. You can very well say that fossil fuel companies should continue to exist because look at how long it's been around with all the expertise people have. Surely they should stay around, right?

Please also see my other comment

https://vger.to/lemmy.ca/comment/20657420

IMO, the industry decided to take the wrong direction, which I would agree makes sense from an economics perspective, but man, all I see is short term gains over long term ones, where we would've been able to build better solutions than hacks upon hacks (not using that fully derogatorily tbh). We could've spent all that energy, money, and time to bettering CSS and improving education to help people understand the cascade and specificity, while building better, more computationally efficient solutions that would minimize our bundles better and make JS a lot tamer than it is.

But I'm blabbering.

That's what I mean though, that the popular frameworks are made to fight the cascade.

Modern web development claims that apps aren't documents and simply disregarded the cascade as an artifact of document-based design, but they're entirely wrong IMO. The cascade is made for consistency and tempo of your websites, and that's a universal design principle irrespective of whether you're making a website, woodcrafting, pottery, or what have you. Tailwind itself claims to give devs the ability to be consistent, but we already have that, and it's the cascade.

Managing the cascade is, understandably, non-trivial, especially in a large enough team. It requires discipline and a good understanding of what not to do, and can take time to practice and perfect. So I understand that in our crazy economic world where speed is everything, learning something new is treated as something that's in the way, and so we churn out devs that aren't proficient in CSS, and they then come to train other devs, who will also not be proficient in CSS. This all lowers the barrier of entry, which is good when looked at microscopically, but in the grand scheme of things, so much of our energy is put into fighting the cascade. Just think of all the styling solutions for CSS-in-JS frameworks that we've churned through in the last 10 years. Madness IMO, but economies gotta economize.

Edit: yeah sorry, I get really passionate about this topic

As someone who writes a lot of CSS, and actually like CSS (yeah, unheard of, I know; I'm some alien), Tailwind doesn't just seem like it's reinventing the wheel and wrapping over an existing language, which is weird when you think about those two being mentioned together, is also bad for other reasons:

• UserCSS becomes near impossible to use
• Web scraping becomes a gigantic mess; LLMs become the only viable solution, and let's not even get started on how crazy that sounds
• Semantic HTML becomes difficult to verify and build upon due to the sheer amouns of TEXT (and if you go "But you can put your most commonly used declarations together in a class selector and use that!" then congratulations you almost just wrote CSS), and in relation to this...
• It encourages bad CSS practices and thus bad HTML practices, as if the terrible walls of text isn't already difficult to debug when working for accessibility
• RIP traditional SEO, and thus RIP any small players who want to create and maintain their own search engine, and only large companies with a lot of resources can hire people to spend a fuck ton of time to scrape and index the web. SEO already has a ton of problems as it were, and Tailwind just adds a new dimension to the problem.

If the web industry as a whole could slow down and learn to live with the cascade (seriously, the cascade is your friend!), and stop demanding that we do CSS without the C, that'd be great.

Thanks for walking pass me standing on my soapbox that virtually nobody cares about.