I am feeling old reading the phrase "traditional frameworks" as a reference to SPA/Virtual DOM frameworks all while the actual traditional frameworks like Backbone, jQuery, etc. actually worked the way described in the blogpost.
"Traditional" always been a measure that depends on when we were born. "Traditional" internet for me is 56kbit modems, vbulletin forums, GTA:VC modding and IRC, while for older people "traditional" internet is probably BBS and such, and for the younger crowd things like Discord is part of the "traditional" internet.
You see the same thing in political conservative/traditional circles, where basically things were good when they were young, and things today are bad, but it all differs on when the person was born.
>You see the same thing in political conservative/traditional circles, where basically things were good when they were young, and things today are bad, but it all differs on when the person was born
when things decline that's still an accurate represenation, not just an artifact of subjectivity
I've actually just did exactly that a few weeks ago.
I knew what to expect from Rails from my previous experience.
Yet, I wasn't prepared for how freaking fast it is to iterate with Rails and some LLM (I use Cursor atm) when you know what you are doing.
The MVP I expected to take at least 2 months to finish, is going to be done in under 3 weeks, with the current speed, given there are no large blockers.
Nifty diagrams, but they should be taken with a huge grain of salt of course.
For example it shows EN/DE and EN/NO as having equivalent distances (49) when obviously EN/DE are much closer than either is to NO (in any holistic comparison of the three languages). It also shows IT/FR as being significantly closer (31) than IT/SP (40) when that's also plainly not the case -- again if we consider the distance between respective language pairs holistically (which includes a whole lot of other factors like phonemic footprint, meter, etc).
In short this reads like pretty much the kind of post one would expect from a "brain candy" site like this.
Less harshly (assuming good indent on the author's part), it demonstrates the pitfalls of relying on a single score (which in itself can be subject to all kinds of weighting and sampling biases) simply because it's a "score" and we're all supposed to be "data-driven" in our analyses these days.
But again -- nifty diagrams, and they do at least give a feel for the topic of mutual intelligibility and language distance (even if the scores themselves don't seem to be particularly meaningful).
How much of the region history do you know? Russia has been invading countries for centuries. You are fooling yourself by reducing the complicated history and relations between Russia and Ukraine to some kind of semi-conspiracy theory about proxy wars and what's not.
Well why single out Russia then? Since the end of WW2, which countries have invaded other countries the most? And what was the outcome of those invasions?
Get answers to these questions and you will know what I mean. All wars that have happened since WW2 are proxy wars. The west never learn the lesson after WW1 that humiliating a defeated country gives rise to characters like Hitler. After the fall of the USSR, if the west had put in an effort to mainstream Russia rather than make a scene out of it(remember that famous Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin press conference outside White House?) Even after that, Russia tried to guage the seriousness of the west (most notably NATO, because that is where the problem lies) to accommodate Russia. The Russians (Gorbachev himself had said this many times in interviews) that there was a promise from NATO to not expand eastwards because NATO was after all formed as a military alliance against Russia. Realising that is not going to happen, Russia used another track, of applying to NATO. The argument the Russians made was that if NATO is not an anti-Russian alliance then it should be allowed to join NATO too. This was the bonhomie period between Russia and the west(remember Putin being welcomed both at Downing Street by the UK prime minister and by the US President at his ranch?) In fact Russia was also very instrumental in providing logistical and intelligence support to NATO in the very early days of the "war on terror". Russia also expedited boundary resolution with some of its neighbours as that was one of the conditions put by NATO for Russia to be included in NATO. Having realised that NATO was not going to induct Russia, the Russians declared the now famous redline to NATO that it will not tolerate NATO missiles at its borders (the same way US did not tolerate USSR missiles in Cuba). Ukraine became a red flag for Russia because not only it would have bought NATO missiles to its doorsteps but it would have choked them in the black sea.
Watch Adam Curtis documentary on this subject and the background to this geopolitical chess game.
Having said all this, I am a believer in what Mahatma Gandhi said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". But I am also a realist. I know that the world is not rational. As the US reacted to the Cuban missile crisis, Russia is reacting to the NATO expansion. And no one really cares about the "pawn states". That is why I will urge you to watch Naftali Bennett's podcast interview.
What surprises me is that had NATO expedited Russian inclusion into NATO, it would have to concentrate only on "containing" China. Now, not only has that pushed Russia into China's orbit, it has opened a two front "war" in Europe and Asia!
> The Russians (Gorbachev himself had said this many times in interviews) that there was a promise from NATO to not expand eastwards because NATO was after all formed as a military alliance against Russia.
This oft repeated lie by supporters of Russia is getting tired. Gorbachev himself said that there was no promise given to him by NATO except in east Germany, which was kept.
Thanks for sharing this!
It's been only a few posts so far since I started the blog, but I am actually looking for persons first, and the "coolness" of a setup doesn't really matter to me. In fact, I find a laptop that moves between sofa and a kitchen table as inspiring as some intricate setups. There is something about doing more with less. And I am sure there will be people with such setups featured on the blog, as well.
Here we come again with the "Ukrainian nationalism" and "coup". So boring. Will you ever update your guide on Russian propaganda? Even the russian troll factory stopped using these arguments like 2 years ago.
But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us (CIS borders and nationalism after the USSR).
Why can't we just be neutral? We didn't do this for Georgia's claim in Ossetia or Armenia's claim with Azerbaijan (both similar scenarios), or the Iraq-Iran war, etc.
> But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us (CIS borders and nationalism after the USSR).
Very weird to say those things
- Inflation isn't just caused by the invasion.
- Inflation is at ~9%, not enough for 25% purchasing power loss.
- The conflict has a lot of things to do with Europe. Since when is Ukraine not an european country? Even if you mean just the EU, both Ukraine and Russia border several EU countries, and Russia has threatened some of them.
- "Remaining neutral" doesn't mean "free of consequences".
The fact is we should have intervened in Armenia and Georgia. We should have intervened in Syria, at least to some extent. We should have imposed crushing sanctions on Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The fact that we did not is a causal direct line to this invasion.
Since the gulf war the west has become averse to foreign adventurism. I understand that and why, but it's misconceived. Washing our hands of the rest of the world and letting countries like Iran and Russia (and Iraq under Saddam Hussein) do whatever they like doesn't work. It comes back to bite us every single time.
Even if we say it's not our problem, it's not our responsibility, it always comes back and hurts us and our direct economic, political and humanitarian interests again and again. It leads to things like the rape of Kuwait and 9/11.
Being fully engaged internationally is expensive in money and lives, it's messy, it's morally compromising. It's also unavoidable. We are part of the world and can't deny responsibility for playing our part in it. Or rather we can, but at a heavy price to ourselves and others.
Intervened on which side in Georgia? That Georgian government was absolutely terrible, putting dissidents in prison, firing on protests, etc. - just because they're anti-Russia doesn't make them good.
We should just try to live in peace and focus on our own nations and stop making enemies.
I'm sorry my friend, but our enemies are out there. They hate us and they want to kill us or force us to change politics or religion whether we like it or not. If they can't get to you they will get to your friends, or neighbouring countries, or countries you trade with, or that you visit on holiday. They're not going to suddenly decide to be all friendly and nice to us, just because we turn our backs on the people they are already terrorising and assaulting.
I'm in no way supporting or justifying the Georgian government at the time, we shouldn't have been tolerating that either. The point is what happens in these places matters to us. It affects us, whether we like it or not.
>Why is it our responsibility?
Because we are moral beings that live in the world, we benefit from the things that world provides to us, and therefore have responsibility for the state of the world we live in.
Millions of Europeans in nations bordering Russia disagrees. This conflict is all about us. We'll take the economic troubles and the cold winters as they come. We can still see clearly that we're not freezing in a bomb shelter or trench, as the Ukranians are on our behalf.
Take your neutrality and what-abouts and stuff them.
The Ukranians are free to surrender to Russia should they want to. But the decision is theirs. As long as they want our support I say we are obligated to provide it.
I'd also recommend you to be careful with predictions on the outcome of wars.
> for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us
This is so wrong. Where do you think all the disinformation comes from? The rise of far-right parties across Europe. The attacks on democracy. Putin has been waging war against us (albeit a new kind of war) for many years. It is time to fight back if we value democracy at all.
Damn that Putin is both very weak (his Country has GDP of Texas while having way more people), and absolute mastermind organizing far right as some kind of pauper Lex Luthor, on a shoestring budget.
Disclaimer: Western troubles are features of capitalism, they provide the fuel, even if Putin is the one to throw the cigarette butt.
Check my comment history here. You'll see I'm no particular fan of capitalism.
And of course the far-right existed before Putin.
But he is the head of a mafia organization that controls the world's largest supply of natural gas. So I think funding a few right-wing grifters/useful idiots like Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage is within their capabilities.
"But here in Europe we've had 25% of our savings and purchasing power destroyed almost overnight, for a conflict that really has nothing to do with us..."
Come now, how can you say that?
After the fall of the USSR, Europe willingly got into bed with the 'new' Russia because it saw an opportunistic economic advantage to do so.
Even back then it was a gamble for Europe to put too many of its eggs into that Russian basket and now it is paying the price. ...And a hefty one at that.
This isn't a simple territorial dispute. Russia has abducted vast numbers of people to camps from where we have no idea what happened to them, vanished Ukrainian children into their adoption system, and massacred huge numbers of civilians wherever it has taken control. They are clearly trying to wipe Ukraine and its identity off the map.
why are (western) Europeans such pussies? Like, really, short-term economic loss is not going to kill anyone. I'm glad to see that the eastern, slavic and baltic part of Europe can handle it so much better. Partly because they've been under totalitarian rule, and gone through the economic disaster it left behind. Which was waaay harder then the current cost surge
> Why can't we just be neutral? We didn't do this for Georgia's claim in Ossetia or Armenia's claim with Azerbaijan (both similar scenarios), or the Iraq-Iran war, etc.
Errors of the past are not a good way to go further.
Lack of any defense for Georgia was very sad (similarly for Chechnya, but Russians might look at it a bit more angry). Fortunatelly Ukraine is to close to EU borders to be ignored and handed over to Russian war mongering.
Nice list! I love that the Code by Charles Petzold is on it!
I created something similar out of my list of books which I used to navigate the transition to a Tech Lead role: https://techleadcompass.com/. I see that some of the books presented on the OP's list overlap with my list.
