this is very cool! I love how responsive the interface is.

judging by his name, he is perhaps in Sofia. I am also living here, and can confirm that many middle class people order groceries online.

>It’s also where furkan gets pretty much all his content, before it gets paywalled.

Who/what is Furkan?

yep, the lichess algorithm for finding puzzles from real games is way more sophisticated than this, and they find some really weird bugs

I used the puzzles provided by lichess themselves. So, could be problem in my code. I will work towards making it more difficult and letting users choose the level of difficulty. Thanks for the feedback!

Ok, if you're just using the lichess puzzles and stockfish, why wouldn't I just go to lichess?

Okay its not just about the puzzles, I built it primarily for the game review that chess.com charges money for. And with the use of stockfish I've tried to make the UI more user friendly especially for beginners who want to study openings and just spend time looking at a chessboard making moves and seeing what is the best move for each position plus its easily accessible for a newcomer. By contrast, in lichess you have to go through the learn page and "find" the study page while in ChessDream you just go to the page and start making moves. I'm not saying my site is better than Lichess; I'm just proposing my opinions about how ChessDream might be helpful for people that are willing to learn chess.

feedback - I tried the puzzles. 1) they all seem trivial and don't escalate in difficulty fast enough 2) I got stuck on the 14th - I'm making the correct move, but nothing happens. I'm not wrong, but even if I were wrong, the website ought to have some feedback to show me my move is wrong, or an option to give up.

Working on it!

If you don't want your opinion to be critiqued, you can simply not post.

There’s no critique though - simply tone policing while trying to push another argument entirely. I’m not even making whatever argument is being “critiqued” here. It’s simply bad posting.

but there was a critique, your proposal was "something something let an army fix it" and they provided context "something something various armies caused it."

Then that would be an unrelated critique/strawman that doesn't accurately respond to what they said.

They did not propose to fix it via an army. Instead they said "nothing short of military intervention can stop something like this" That is not a recommendation. Instead it is describing how difficult the problem is to solve.

They then followed it up by saying "but that has its whole slew of unintended side effects". This is significantly hedging the claim, saying that the military could actually make things worse!

Maybe one of the side effects that he is saying could happen is exactly the issue brought up, meaning that the famine would get worse. Therefore bringing this up as a possibility is not a critique, and actually agrees with the original statement.

And they also previously had said "I’ll let people smarter and more powerful than me debate what could/should be done". That statement explicitly saying that they aren't proposing things.

They even finished up the statement by saying "a conversation needs to be had very soon how this should be handled ", which only suggesting that this should be talked about, because he quite clearly thinks that this is a complicated and difficult problem to solve, for which a military intervention could very well not be a good idea!

If you actually read the original statement it is extremely conservative in its statements, and you have to almost intentionally be obtuse to attack such a hedging non recommendation that merely describes how bad and hard it is to solve!

Instead of being an asshole, people could just respond to the idea.

Dude?

It is the member state authority, although EU GDPR is a Directive, is up to the member state. It doesn’t just apply to the EU, it can be UK ICO.

I have literally seen EU institutions fragrantly break GDPR

There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.

Yes, you can try to assert fuzzy boundaries, but that doesn't mean that the thing we're pointing to doesn't exist. There are actually plenty of people that cannot do plenty of jobs.

Nobody minds hiring a software dev with a wheelchair or a person wearing glasses. This is not objectionable. Your proposed way to view this dilemma has to also be able to address the more problematic cases - what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time? Or a blind person applying to be a QA?

>There is a slight difference between glasses and hiring someone actually disabled - blind, deaf, can't do physical labor, autistic, etc.

Except you can be legally blind, have glasses, and still have nearly perfect vision. You can be legally deaf, but listen fairly well with correctives etc. all of these are reasonable accommodations too.

>what happens with an Amazon worker who can't stand up for longer periods of time?

There's 0(generally -in most cases) justification for workers not being able to sit on their stations in amazon warehouses except for "we don't want you to," so nothing happens.

>a blind person applying to be a QA?

Believe it or not, blind QA people who work in accessibility exist.