No, it was bought by MRG after AOL fought its users and won, so they all left for Skype.
Yep, starting with the first paragraph. The author might have skipped his Sunday school or something. In Christianity it's considered that "God's chosen people" has been extended to the whole humanity.
"I don’t think these people even know what that truly means" - maybe most of them don't, but they are using the designation correctly.
"Arab citizens of Israel have the same rights as Jewish citizens" - well, the statement is kinda true ; technically false due to Israeli laws being a patchwork of weird shit with some inheritance from the Ottoman millets system, which is the same as apartheid give or take, but that's not why the author is wrong. It's just that most of Arabs living under Israeli military control are not citizens of Israel.
Why am I even commenting that, there are sometimes outrageous texts with which it's a dubious, but still pleasure to argue with. This one is just some jellybrain's product.
He wasn't as good to them either, look up Dersim rebellion and such. Erdo started as a democratic change with a small flavor of Islam. Because that secularism was about creating a fascist state and a social layer of Kemalist privileged elite (military mostly). But that's something a Turk may explain better.
OK, makes me feel nausea. Even better.
I did read it a lot, it's just that Christianity over the pond is weird. Weirder than in China and Japan, I can understand where their traits of it come from, but in USA it's something hard for me to emotionally grasp.
one the Turks still refuse to acknowledge
That's actually imprecise.
They acknowledge that "something" happened, but deny various separate traits, like intent or numbers or relevance for today or even just say that genocide wasn't illegal then. There's also that "it didn't happen, but they deserved it, and we'll do it again" thing. Which gives a very special feeling, considering they are well in position to do it again.
And it's illegal to publicly recognize it in Turkey, so not only malevolent, but also benevolent voices seem to be kinda in denial, while in fact not.
Still had Germany not lost WWII so conclusively, I suspect we'd be amazed at how self-conscious a lot of Turks are as compared to Germans.
Those plenty are not so numerous if we consider how many nation-states there are on the globe.
Israeli dark money
... is something important enough to kill a 100 JFKs for.
It's a state sporting F35s and such.
and the political influence of evangelical millenarians
Can't speak about them, I don't live in the US and the fact of such a group existing is wild for me.
Well, it does, and when a comment does make sense, but not to you, and instead of asking where you are wrong you are trying to make fun of it, it just means you are a clown.
I didn't think that would happen in Armenia, but since it does - the way some Armenians act towards refugees from Artsakh is similar, I think.
It's easier for Israelis (especially when being fascists) to think that they themselves are strong, and those survivors are not like them, they are weak. It's as they wanted to identify with Nazis more.
With such Armenians too - it's the worse part of them thinking they can be just like Turks if they suck up to Turks, and also because Artsakhtsis lost their homeland for being weak, and they are not weak.
A bit like ignorant and cowardly people abandon relatives with chronic diseases, when there's no evidence of those diseases being transferable.
It's just cowardice. Humans do it under pressure or when presented with dark events for their interpretation and self-identification. While good upbringing may reduce the risk of someone growing up a coward, it's very human.
In my experience something similar exists with a subset of Russians, - they hate Israel the particular way, they just love the fact that it exists and commits crimes.
When you are Jewish and proud of yourself, it makes them just as livid as when you are Armenian and proud of yourself.
Republic of Armenia is quite miserable and they enjoy that, Israel is strong, but lacks dignity even more than RoA and they enjoy that, so the emotion gets especially extreme when you put these states and your own pride and the fact that they can change and have dignity in contrast.
(I have tested that.)
Their loyalties still aren’t lodged with anyone, but we keep sucking them off anyway.
Well, I shit at Israel every day, but they would be nuts to "lodge their loyalties" when that means loss of such leverage.
It being that important, surely somebody in the US government and intelligence have thought that they might not be abusing only that importance for funds, but the ties themselves for influence. In the sense of spying at the US, corruption and such.
It's rather weird that a Christian cult would spend so much on people who are, according to that cult, pariahs.
I don't think support of Israel is that much connected to Christianity. It's rather that when you have Israel, supporting it is a huge reputational counterweight to any fascist action you take.
But why? What’s bad about this?
What I said, literally.
But the web can support many more advanced use-cases than that.
Which can be done with something embeddable, and not by breaking a hypertext system.
So you can see that other people have different needs to yours, but you think those shouldn’t be considered? We’re arguing about the internet. It’s a pretty diverse space.
If those people don't consider mine, then I don't consider theirs. If I must consider theirs, they must consider mine.
Look, I’m not saying that the web is the most coherent platform to develop for or use, but it’s just where we’re at after decades of evolving needs needing to be met.
That says nothing. It's a market\evolution argument. Something changes tomorrow and that will be the result of evolution. Somebody uses a different system and that's it for them.
That said, embedded interactive content is absolutely not better than what we have now. For one, both Flash and Java Applets were mostly proprietary technologies, placing far too much trust in the corpos developing them.
And today's web browsers are as open as Microsoft's OOXML. De facto proprietary.
There were massive cross-platform compatibility problems,
For Flash? Are you sure? I don't remember such.
and neither were in any way designed for or even ready for a responsive web that displays well on different screen sizes.
Nothing was. Doesn't tell us anything.
Accessibility was a big problem as well, given an entirely different accessibility paradigm was necessary within vs. the HTML+CSS shell around the embedded content.
Yes, but applet's problems in that wouldn't spread to the HTML page embedding it. Unlike now.
Today, the web can do everything Flash + Java Applets could do and more, except in a way that’s not proprietary but based on shared standards, one that’s backwards-compatible, builds on top of foundational technologies like HTML rather than around, and can actually keep up with the plethora of different client devices we have today.
I've already said how it's similar to OOXML. Only MS documented their proprietary at the moment standard of their proprietary program and made it open, while Chromium is itself open, but somehow that doesn't make things better.
And speaking of security — sure, maybe web browsers were pretty insecure back then generally, but I don’t see how you can argue that a system requiring third-party browser plug-ins that have to be updated separately from the browser can ever be a better basis for security than just relying entirely on the (open-source!) JS engine of the browser for all interactivity.
That's similar to the Apple walled garden arguments. It's valuable in areas other than security because of separating power between some browser developer and some plugin's developer. And fighting monoculture is also good for security.
Also people still use plugins, still separately updated, which still get compromised.
Also plugins can be properly sandboxed.
The idea that any old website builder back in the day was more “ergonomic” while even approaching the result quality and capabilities of any no-code homepage builder solution you can use today is just laughable. Sorry, but I don’t really feel the burden of proof here. And I’m not even a fan of site builders, I would almost prefer building my own site, but I recognize that they’re the only (viable) solution for the majority of people just looking for a casual website.
Sorry, I still do feel that burden of proof. Because for a static site like in 2002 I'd just export a page from OpenOffice and edit some links, and then upload it.
Ironically, proper SSR that has the server render the page as pure HTML & CSS is becoming more and more popular lately thanks to full-stack meta frameworks that make it super easy.
I know. Just the "full-stack meta frameworks" part alone makes any ADHD person feel nausea.
Of course, wanting to go back to having no JS is crazy — websites would lose almost all ability to make pages interactive, and that would be a huge step backwards, no matter how much nostalgia you feel for a time before widespread JS.
I disagree. Geminispace is very usable without scripts.
That’s right, they do and they are.
Well, then it appears they don't care for what I need, so I don't care for what they need. If only one paradigm must remain, then naturally I pick mine. If not, then there's no problem and I still shouldn't care.
And those industry rules I was answering about are about making a thing work for both, even if being less functional.
Flash and Java Applets were a disaster and a horrible attempt at interactivity, and everything we have today is miles ahead of them. I don’t even want to get into making arguments as to why because it’s so widely documented.
Sorry, but either you still make an argument or this isn't worth much.
For me it's obvious that embeddable cross-platform applications as content inside hypertext are much better than turning a hypertext system into some overengineered crappy mess of a cross-platform application system.
The security issues with Flash and Java applets weren't much different from those in the other parts of a web browser back then.
There are vastly more usable and simple tools for making your own personal websites today!
I ask you for links and how many clicks and fucks it would take to make one with these, as opposed to back then. These are measurable, scientific things. Ergonomics is not a religion.
People will ALWAYS fuck up. The world we craft for ourselves must take the “human factor” into account, otherwise we amplify the consequences of what are predictable outcomes.
So what does it say about us diverting from purely server-side scripted message boards with pure HTML and tables, and not a line of JS? Yes, let's get back there please. And no phone numbers.
The majority of industries that actually have immediate and potentially fatal consequences do exactly this, and have been for more than a generation now.
Boeing - we know where you're goeing.
Damn near everything you interact with on a regular basis has been designed at some point in time with human psychology in mind. Built on the shoulders of decades of research and study results, that have matured to the point of becoming “standard practices”.
There's one industry which kinda started like this, with proper HIG and standard key combinations and proven usability with screenreaders or by people with color blindness, autism, ADHD, whatever.
Then came in people talking with the tone similar to, sorry, yours in the "People will ALWAYS fuck up" part came saying that people want nice, dynamic, usable websites with lots of cool new features, people are social, they want girls with real photos, names and phone numbers on their forums which BTW should be called social nets.
By the way, we already had that with Flash and Java applets, some things of what I remember were still cooler than modern websites of the "web application" paradigm are now. And we had personal webpages with real names and contacts and photos. And there were tools allowing to make them easily.
These people just hated the existing culture with its individualism and depth, the web applications should be able to own you and not be just another kind of embedded content, the personal webpages should be all the same, and of course normies wouldn't want to come as guests into the nerdspace - no, they had those new social nets as their space, looking down on those nerds and freaks of my kind.
Now - well, try using today's web as a person impaired in any way.
And those normies can't really use it too, and too feel impaired, they just won't admit it.
I'm trying to get your joke here, because in my comment the connections between numbers and rules were given in the paragraph previous to the one with # notation.