But it isn't wrong, is it? Democracy elected Hitler, Hitler ended democracy in Germany. I'm not saying that is going to happen here, but your flippant comeback to a valid point is not a rebuttal.
I wish people didn't use the Hitler comparison because it always derails discussion (almost everyone is better than Hitler, even Trump). There are however enough other cases throughout history of people being elected and then becoming dictators.
It is the exact right comparison though. Conservatives failed to maintain power on their ideals. The weak party clings to power, and propels a populist into power. He scapegoats immigrants, and liberal ideas for the general malaise. The only saving grace is that he is old, and not genocidal.
People wouldn't be as familiar with the outcome if we were to discuss those other dictators. I'm certainly unaware of their parallels.
Guy said he'd be dictator on day one and that sometimes it's okay to suspend the constitution. Some of us are concerned about what things he said might be true.
It was clearly a joke, as in taking the first day of office to clean up the perceived mistakes of his predecessor. Do you know any dictators who only planned to rule for one day?
And also, are you still confused why Americans wholeheartedly rejected this BS?
How are you so confident that it is a joke? I'm not that confused about why people give him a pass on stuff like this, but that doesn't mean I like it.
No - CSS and JavaScript are two ways of defining the same thing, an animation. Safari runs its accelerated animations with CoreAnimation - is CoreAnimation a CSS animation?
The UK has been described as an Eastern European economy with London bolted on. Poverty is very obviously increasing there, for anyone familiar with the country.
Come visit us in Eastern Europe and see for yourself that a lower income doesn't equal to "people behaving like wolves".
My grandpa grew up without electricity in his home, seven people in a single wooden hut. He was always a kind old man, even though a bit of a drunkard.
Poverty does tend to correlate to crime, but poverty never exists in a vacuum. Population density probably has a greater bearing on crime, and poverty and population tend to go hand in hand in metropolitan areas.
If you have an area that is poor but has few people, there'll probably be less crime, as less people means it's easier to track each person socially, and thus there's more accountability.
I'm sure there are studies that show optimal 'tribe' sizes, and I know from experience how different orgs can be from small teams to large teams, so it stands to reason that the key driver is probably population density.
we have to differentiate between 'low level' crime and 'high level' crime, e.g. fraud, financial crime, all of those super-rich organised crime
Most CSS animations aren't hardware accelerated. Only a few values like opacity and transform.
Updating the DOM (as in innerHTML) is always expensive because it triggers layout. This is true whether you're doing it from JS or a CSS trick like on this page.
Finally this approach is using CSS custom properties. These are slow - slower than JS for most things.
If you stop all animations on this page and profile it via Chrome you can see this in effect. The root node is animating a CSS variable. 117 elements have their style recalculated. Every frame - yet no animations are running. There's also a tiny paint triggered too, obviously there's been no changes so it is tiny in this instance, but a paint is always triggered when a CSS variable updates.
This is why animating x and y separately via CSS and a style like `translate(var(--x) var(--y))` would be worse than animating them via JS ala Framer Motion/GSAP.
We shouldn't diminish the power of transform here. It's not just one property like opacity. You can animate quite a bit on the compositor with transform
Just one nitpick: the DOM is not updated by CSS here, only the value of the CSS variable is. (It will indeed cause style recalc and paint though, and result in poor performance as we can see with the demos.)
If that's the book I'm thinking of I was also initially impressed until like chapter 6 when, after spending the book talking about how simple and elegant this theory was, it opens with "what if there wasn't just one string but lots of strings, and they were n-dimensional etc etc..." and threw it all out the window. I put the book down.
Not really - watches are historically round because of roundrel clock faces. A square is a better form factor for literally everything else that an Apple Watch does. So it is the Apple move to shape the watch to perform best at 95% of its tasks, and a Google move to shape the watch to perform best with a subset of available watch faces.
This isn't even new. Casio etc have designed digital square watches for decades because they don't need to be round without clock arms.
the smearing with any head movement on the AVP and the glares or flares or whatever those are have made it unsuitable for movie watching for my movie buff friend who got it because of the "better" screens. He's back to his Quest.
They might carry on improving the quality for the Pro (although this also has limits and diminishing returns) but they don't need to do that if they're targeting a sub $1000 headset, they just need to make these screens cheaper.
Yes and no - IE was hated in part for deviating from standard/showing weird behaviour. But more than that it was dragging its feet on implementing new CSS and JS standards so they couldn't be used for years after introduction. It was nightmare.
