To my understanding, the point of this system is not actually how its default component looks or how rich the default components set are. It's to provide a framework to create Custom HTML Elements (which are browser native?) that we can re-use across projects with different front-end frameworks.
e.g., Creating a React Button component using Fast Button like this:
Okay, but how its default components look and how rich the default component set is is how you sell the benefits of such a component creation system. As it is, it makes it look like you can only make limited, badly designed components.
I'm a Burmese Buddhist and strongly against both the arrest of reporters and killing unarmed people of any race/religion. But there is a hidden agenda behind such article.
It used the word "Buddhist" many many times, such as Buddhist village, Buddhist neighbors, Buddhist community. The conflict is much more complicated than religious and those Buddhists mentioned are in fact local "Arakan" people.
See following NY Times article, not to defend the killing or anything but to show the matter is much more complicated than it seems. The western medias have been entirely one-sided and barely listen to the other side of the story of local Arakan.
It's not more complicated here, in this story, where Reuters got confirmation from the Buddhist villagers who participated in the mass murder. So I'm not sure why it's important that we take into account the fact that hungry people displaced into refugee camps to escape a genocide might lie to get better rations --- which is the "other side of the story" your link reveals. The people Reuters is writing about in this story didn't make it that far, did they?
Unfortunately more important than the victims themselves in this story is the confirmation Reuters has now provided to so much of the rest of the narrative about Rakhine. Soldiers disguised themselves while committing atrocities. We know this now because Reuters found paramilitaries and police officers to confirm it. Orders were specifically given to "clear" Rohingya villages. Same. Buddhist neighbors torched the village itself. We know this because Buddhists have now admitted to it, to Reuters. The government fabricated a terrorist attack. We know because the victims of the supposed attack deny it occurred.
What happened in Inn Dinn was too systematized to have happened only in Inn Dinn. It happened, in general, throughout Rakhine, the way the Rohingya displaced said it did.
I think the point was that "Buddhist" is probably not the most apt word to describe the people who did these things. Buddhist may well be part of their cultural or personal identities, but to most Americans and Europeans at least, I suspect that labeling these people primarily as "Buddhist" is not actually useful, and in fact in the minds of an audience mostly unfamiliar with Buddhism, much less with the society where this happened in Myanmar, such a style tends to associate Buddhism with the activities described, when there's no link. Ultimately, using "Buddhists" and "Muslims" to distinguish the two groups is just sloppy reporting.
Again, this may be an important difference between members of the two groups, but like any conflict between groups, the differences in identity are what get played up and pointed out, when the differences are rarely the _reason_ for the conflict. They're a way to manipulate people into joining a side, or to cultivate political resentment, or to explain a complex situation in a simple way for a mass audience. But such reporting only buys into and amplifies the artificial distinctions that feed the conflict. The reporters do no favors to these people by oversimplifying the situation.
The GO suggested "Arakan people", but that would imply that Rohingya are not inhabitants of Arakan, which would be plainly wrong and politically biased. For the same reason "Arakanese villagers" is not possible. "Non-Rohingya" is unambiguous, but not suitable for many reasons.
Moreover, some Buddhist monks had public preaches violently against Muslims, so the religion played a role in this conflict.
Lastly, if you open any history book about the last world war, you'll read about "German" soldiers committing crimes against Jews. They did not commit these because they were Germans, nor did every German from these years bear responsibility for these, but the word is still appropriate.
> where Reuters got confirmation from the Buddhist villagers who participated in the mass murder
What do you propose we do? There is "mass murder" all over the world, and as the major faiths go, Christianity globally is much more zealously persecuted than Islam. Why is this particular flash point of religious strife being given such a disproportionate amount of attention by Reuters and other major western media outlets?
Are you suggesting that there is a bias in Western media against Christians and in favour of Muslims? That would be the first time I've heard such an accusation.
Note, that you are not beeing downvoted because of the issue you are trying to focus on (religious persecution is a topic worth its own consideration no matter what flavour of religion or lack thereof), but because you are trying to relativize genocide with whataboutism.
Excuse my ignorance - but does Buddhism have a concept of "holy war" like in Christianity, Judaism and Islam? If so - are they using religious justification for the killings or is the killing purely ethnical?
I don't want to spark arguments - so feel free to just post some reading material as a reply if you'd prefer to and I'll read it.
No, Buddhism as a religion doesn't, although you must understand that even in Christianity and Islam, the whole notion of "Holy War" is more a smokescreen to hide the much more prosaic underlying causes for war that have always been true throughout history: land, resources, human slave labour, control in general.
And it doesn't matter what justification is used for killing, really. One must look at the case from all angles, as the your parent said. However war and killing has never resolved long running conflicts in history. It merely subsides for a while before rearing its head again.
We really must put an end to quarrelling based on religion, race, ethnicity, and other puerile differences, or our species is never going to reach its potential on this planet.
I agree with everything you said, except for " it doesn't matter what justification is used for killing". I think that we should strive to understand the reasoning and aspects of human psychology/sociology that make some such "justifications" more effective than others, so we could do better at promoting peace.
Almost all religions have prohibitions against killing; almost all adherents ignore religious rules whenever they would require acting against their immediate self-interest.
Buddhists are no exception. Sad as it may be, such atrocities are not unprecedented and have accompanied Buddhism throughout its history; just as they have accompanied any other faith.
Yes there are those who distort religion, but many religions have war ingrained in their identities, their foundations. Their gods, as described in the ancient texts, sanctioned and blessed war. The Abrahamic faiths are perfect examples of this.
Buddhism, from it's source, is different in that its first espouser categorically denounced violence against all living things, which makes any Buddhist warfare a shocking example of human ills. The Buddha even goes as far as to denounce just retribution.
> Buddhism has a fairly explicit prohibition against killing
It is easily worked around by dehumanization of your opponents. In buddhism such people might be considered icchantika for example which is basically someone who can never reach Nirvana and thus killing these "non-people" is akin to exterminating pests.
Obviously, there are many ways to dehumanize someone and sadly this is happening in many societies around the world right now.
There is NO concept of holy war in Buddhism. It's purely about love (Mettā).
Although a very (very) few monks are trying to implement such idea. When there is zero reference to support their idea in actual Buddha's teaching, they are seeking and using some ancient India/Sri Lanka historical arguments.
Unfortunately, with the situations with Rohingha conflict, they are gaining some support.
Religion is the fundamental fault line in this series of massacres, and the military has broad support from Buddhists throughout the country. In that context I don't see why 'Buddhist village, Buddhist community" is inappropriate, and certainly do not see evidence of a hidden agenda.
Could you please highlight these complicatio? Media is overwhelmed with just killings but there is little information on what lead to this event. It was perhaps many years in making?
Yes, what you wrote violates the guidelines, which ask us to post civilly and substantively. Information-free religious flamebait is pretty obviously not that and leads to accounts getting banned.
Pretty sure that if I posted statistics outlining my so-called "flamebait," then I would be equally in trouble. This is an article outlining how violent buddhists are (yes it is framed that way) - and my comment was a reply to someone framing Americans as ignorant for not realizing this supposed truth about Buddhists!
RSS reader. I use Feedly to subscribe HN altogether with dozen of other sources and receive somewhat around a hundred posts daily. I read through all headlines. But only go through a few that really interest me.
It doesn't help much with filtering content but it help you make sure you don't miss anything interesting.
I'm from Myanmar and not sure why this is posted here.
It's true that the traditional units are still in use. Mostly in rural areas and, local markets and small stores in cities.
Although not all the unites from smallest to largest are all in use. Mostly middle parts of those unit are in common use. e.g., only Htwa (length from tip of your thumb to pinky finger), Taung (length from your fist to elbow), Lan (length of stretch of both hands) are in common use of length. Same goes to weight and volume as well. Even local people don't know the correct measurement of smaller and higher ones.
Imperial units are also in used, such as mile in highway roads, inches to measure clothes, feet to measure building, pound to weight foods, etc... Government is trying to migrate metric system (I think there was an official statement), but without proper plan, no progress so far.
So, you will see all three of systems are in use in mixture of here and there. It's so mess-up. We have serious standardize problems. Measurements is not the only one. There is a similar story with character sets and encoding that seriously messing up Myanmar language on computer.
Likely to provide evidence against the claim that the USA is the only country not using the metric system. But we (USA) sell soda and car engines in liters, just like everyone.
For as long as I've been on the internet, the common claim is that there's three countries not using metric - USA, Burma, and Liberia. I believe this is still the case, despite some hand-waving by the Burmese administration as described in TFA.
USA doesn't sell soda, of course. Within USA, though it's been a while since I've been there, I thought most soda was sold in fluid ounces (a particularly weird-sounding unit to people outside the country, I'm sure).
Car engines I thought were still mostly measured in cubic inches, horsepower, miles per gallon, etc.
One area that the USA does embrace metric is photography - but then most cameras are designed and constructed in metric-adopting countries. I think it would be delightful if USitizens were obliged to talk about focal length in terms of fractions & multiples of inches.
Thank you for the insider knowledge & clarifications.
For a long time here in AU we had metric on many items with imperial measurements in parenthesis, but it's rare to see that now (except on retail-packaged foodstuffs imported from the UK, and perhaps the US).
Car engine displacement -- I can't find a good explanation of when that preference may have changed for the USA.
I'm aware that 1959 marked the alignment of the British vs USA inch, but I believe the difference was tiny (enough to annoy you if you'd just purchased some very fine feeler gauges, but not enough to noticeably change the engine displacement measurement).
It sounds like it may simply be a reaction to car manufacturers describing displacement in litres - and so may be a consequence of the shift in ownership from domestic to foreign (metric marketed) cars.
A friend of mine renovates very old cars - he's doing up a Riley at the moment, and was describing the variations on Whitworth (and others) to me.
Of particular delight was his describing the subtle change to the bolt heads during the 1940's.
The Wikipedia page for Whitworth Standard [1] summarises it well (though I can't but help feel that no one involved in these specifications genuinely understood the meaning of the word Standard). Quoting from same:
"However, in World War II the size of the Whitworth hexagon was reduced to the same size as the equivalent BSF hexagon purely to save metal during the war and they never went back to the old sizes afterwards."
A lovely segue to another HN article earlier today about skeuomorphic designs that linger like a bad smell.
I'm danged happy to have grown up in a society that embraces metric.
"Though the Rohingya armed groups carried out attacks on security forces and civilians on 9 October 2016 in which nine policemen were killed and on 25 August 2017 in which 30 police outposts were attacked leading to the death of 10 police officers, one soldier and one immigration officer, the [UN] Special Rapporteur Lee failed to name the Rohingya armed opposition groups."
"On all issues, the people of Myanmar are with you. But on the Rohingya issue, the people will never be with you. What is at the heart of this huge gap between perspectives of the majority of Burmese and the international community, and how does this inform making progress on alleviating the genuine humanitarian crisis facing the Rakhine Muslims in Sittwe?"
"On the other side of the political tension in Rakhine state ... are Rakhine Buddhists who are genuinely afraid of a (false) Muslim takeover."
"For Aung San Suu Kyi to retain legitimacy where it matters most, it is understandable that she is not outspoken on an issue that could spark even more violence."
e.g., Creating a React Button component using Fast Button like this:
`const ReactButton = () => <fast-button>Button</fast-button>`