Expo has been making unbelievably rapid progress with tooling, documentation, consistent, high quality API's and general improvements. Evan Bacon + team are really impressive to watch
> They start their career at age 24 and, because they have a Master's degree, they skip over the long years in the trenches working as a computer programmer. Instead, their first job is often as CTO of some medium sized company.
If this is actually in your book I would remove it. This totally destroys your credibility because:
A. You're talking about a 7 person startup, not a "medium sized company"
B. You're talking about the worst managed medium sized company I've ever heard of, where they would put a 24 y.o. masters student with no real world experience in charge of anyone.
C. It's not a true anecdote
Any of the above options lead me as a reader to think that either you don't have experience in the industry, have experience with poorly managed companies or are making up scenarios to fit your narrative
> Adding web support to Flutter involved implementing Flutter’s core drawing layer on top of standard browser APIs, in addition to compiling Dart to JavaScript, instead of the ARM machine code that is used for mobile applications. Using a combination of DOM, Canvas, and WebAssembly, Flutter can provide a portable, high-quality, and performant user experience across modern browsers.
No. Where did you get that from? Compiling dart into WASM is a highly requested, but unimplemented feature (it's not really necessary for most cases you'd think). https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/32894
The CanvasKit renderer, which at the time of this GitHub comment [0] was experimental but is now the default one (the other being a HTML renderer rather than a canvas renderer, but that had some problems and was not as fast as the canvas implementation, so it was overridden by canvas), uses WASM and WebGL.
Nothing. You are just on a forum that is populated mostly by people on the left of the political spectrum in the US, and you alluded to fact that contradicts their current moral panic about the danger of "Nazi" groups in the US. And, yes, they are much rarer.
> But aren't neo Nazi's fringe and rarer than wokies?
Depends on your definition. They may be rare if you only include self-identified Nazis. However, if you expand that to include members of the Far Right and general White Surpemacists then they're not only not fringe but they become as mainstream as Hannity, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and all of the Q-anon grifters.
White supremacists -as in people who believe most of the same thing as actual literal nazis, are by no means rare these days.
But if you mean people traipsing around in black SS uniforms then sure yeah those guys are rare, sure.
> White supremacists -as in people who believe most of the same thing as actual literal nazis, are by no means rare these days
The conflation of white supremacism and naziism is pretty much entirely political maneuvering. They believe very different things about the state, forms of government, gay people, culture, land use and many other things. Not to mention that only a small number of people termed white supremacists actually are (it conflates believing in racial differences (which are often not just white>everything) with believing in racial segregation with believing that the "white" ethnic group will form a better society),
No, this is known alt-right maneuvering, consistent with Nazi doctrine. You can replace that with 'fascist' if you like :)
Fussing about debatey details while repeatedly planting the desired concepts and trying to get anything you can, conceded so you can place a marker and push further, is very Nazi. It's foundational alt-right strategy, along the lines of 'hiding your power level'. This is not mysterious.
The reason it looks like that to you, is because fascists believe nothing… but power (and that only they should hold power, forever: it's not a thing to be shared or handed back and forth). So anything might be claimed, but outside the practical seizing of power, nothing matters.
This is VERY common. Hence people's concern about the matter.
I think all reasonable beings should care about describing things accurately and not conflating different things. For instance, arguments against one of them might not hold against another.
Note that this is far from just a blue tribe thing, it's pretty universal across all politics around the world to deliberately conflate the views of your stupidest enemies and your smartest.
Pretty scary that believing in racial segregation is no longer a fringe belief. In any case, you can’t tell me with a straight face that white people who believe in segregation, in the US, envision a society where there is no power imbalance between ethnic groups. These people want white people to be in charge, which is what white supremacy means in practice.
> Depends on the people. Some would just want the USA split into a few smaller countries.
That doesn’t mean they don’t still want White America in charge; moving a group out of the bounds of the state [0] doesn’t suddenly mean there is no power dynamic, as such dynamics are evident between states.
[0] in the international sense, not in the US-domestic sense
>Some would just want the USA split into a few smaller countries.
"Just" strikes me as an inappropriate adverb to use in this context. You are talking about splitting up the US into racially segregated states. Even in a bizarre hypothetical where this was somehow done with the best of intentions (lol), the amount of chaos and human suffering it would cause is almost impossible to imagine.
This sort of utterly insane belief should not be "pretty fringe". It should be virtually non-existent, in a reasonably sane and healthy society.
It's a real sea change in our culture that racial segregation is now openly considered or even advocated on relatively mainstream forums such as HN. That some of the people in question might not meet some overly pedantic definition of 'white supremacist' is hardly any consolation.
The far right has never taken its own ideology seriously – it's all a means to an end. They tie sympathetic intellectuals up in knots trying to parse and categorize the finer gradations of racist nonsense, and then do whatever they hell they want once they're in power.
> The far right has never taken its own ideology seriously – it's all a means to an end. They tie sympathetic intellectuals up in knots trying to parse and categorize the finer gradations of racist nonsense,
This really doesn't match my experience given how much time they spend arguing/discussing amongst themselves.
Perhaps then you can point me to an intellectually coherent defense of the idea that the US should be split up into racially segregated ethnostates.
Bickering and infighting hardly constitute evidence that intellectually serious work is being done in good faith. The far right has no more use for its 'useful idiots' once it attains power than the Communist party did for its pet intellectuals.
They take their political project seriously, but you won’t find an intellectually serious defense of far right ideology because they are simply not interested in doing that. I am not sure why people are so keen to provide cover for these people by keeping up the pretense that they have some kind of coherent political ideology that can be rationally debated. No-one who is nuts enough to advocate for racially segregated ethnostates within the USA is in that category.
And defunding the police isn't nuts? It's not like the Woke left makes much more sense. Since when is a coherent political ideology a precondition to anything?
Well if everything is about racist white oppressors and colored victims, it could follow that some white people will want a country of their own where they don't have to oppress anyone or be called racist just for being white?
In online arguments I've seen people use definitions ranging all the way from "members of the National Socialist Worker's Party of 1930s and 1940s Germany" to "literally anyone talking in a loud voice" but the most practical distinction between run of the mill fascists and nazis I've seen is that nazis are fascists who also believe in the Jewish conspiracy - which describes a lot more people than most people unaware of far-right memes would probably think.
Of course that leaves the question of how you define fascism, which is a whole 'nother can of worms.
I'd loosely define 'fascism' as 'rule through sheer power by the deserving, over those who don't deserve power or self-rule'. The basic concept is, not everybody deserves to rule. Some people deserve to rule, and others have to BE ruled against their wishes, forever.
Maximum observed 'forever' seems to be under a decade, once the full fascism kicks in and is unavoidable. I don't believe fascism is sustainable, and what we see as 'woke' is a typical reaction to these attempts at rule. (Yes, I'm suggesting that power structures lean more towards fascism than they used to, and that this creates 'woke' as a reaction to this pressure)
I'd loosely define 'Nazi' as 'fascist with specific focus on seizing power through propaganda, media, and politics, particularly with use of anything that's new media'. In the 30s and 40s, of course, this was radio. There had always been massed political rallies (though the use of epic film propaganda was also new, as there'd be no Riefenstahl without the existence of film) but there hadn't been broadcast radio. Generalized, 'Nazi' means fascism plus modern media, and I'd be comfortable focusing that down a little to specify the media's used to rally 'the people' against enemies, specifically internal enemies in an ill-defined way.
Rallying people against 'woke' through coordinated use of social media is EXACTLY Nazi, in technique.
To an extent left and right are asymmetrical---leftist groups tend to be groups organized around being leftist as their main purpose, while "rightist" groups (churches, police unions, gun enthusiasts) tend to be rightist incidentally. Neo Nazis feel like the exception that proves the rule.
The quakers are today so small as to be completely irrelevant. And the existence of the quakers proves the commenters points that right wing groups tend to be right wing only incidentally. They have another main purpose. He gives churches as an example. People go to church for religion. Coincidentally, many of them also happen to be conservative. That there are churches where this is not true only emphasizes this point that right wing groups tend to form incidentally.
Maybe we need a new definition for these extreme groups? I've always found using left and right to describe authoritarian hellscapes to be a little off...
And to be honest I've always found using left and right when viewed from an American perspective to not work either. In my country the furthest "right" mainstream party would sit a mile to the left of your democrats while the republicans would be considered "extreme right" bordering on illegal.
Well to be a conservative in america (ie, to want to conserve american forma of constitutionalism) is to be a Europeans leftist, because the American constitution is a left wing document when seen through the eyes of European politics.
You can look at the political compass the Libertarians are always using. Then you learn that Stalin is a left-authoritarian and Hitler is a right-authoritarian and the lesson is that all authoritarianism is a hellscape.
But even that is just a toy model. If Alice is pro-choice and anti-gun, those are in opposite quadrants. If Bob is the exact opposite, do we say that they're both in the middle, even though they disagree on everything?
> In my country the furthest "right" mainstream party would sit a mile to the left of your democrats while the republicans would be considered "extreme right" bordering on illegal.
The thing about the US is that the federal government is a kleptocracy, so both parties never actually do the things they say they're going to do.
If you judge the Democrats by what they say, they're pretty far to the left. But then they don't do that.
If you judge the Republicans by what they say, they're pretty far to the right. But then they don't do that.
People who want to claim that the country is far to the right then point to what the Democrats actually do and what the Republicans say they want to do. But, for example, the US has government spending as a percentage of GDP in line with the Netherlands or Australia and not dramatically less than the UK or Germany. If you take all the law books full of regulations in the US and put them on a scale, not many countries could match them. If you go back to the political compass, it's maybe more authoritarian than some of Western Europe -- certainly more people are in prison -- but left vs. right? By what objective measure?
It's not government spending as an absolute number, it's who - specifically which class - benefits from the money.
It's the difference between building useful infrastructure and giving a huge handout to a billionaire who is already one of the richest people on the planet.
The US generally leans authoritarian, and bullying at all levels is endemic. That includes the nominal "left", although the far right in the US tends to be far worse. Because while the US left is irrational about a few things, the US far right is hopelessly irrational about almost everything - and armed with it.
Yours is a well-written comment and I'd give it more than one upvote if I could. I wonder if the reality of Democrats' rather strong indifference to progressive economics and meaningful reform--and the GOP spending taxpayer dollars like a drunken sailor--rubs some folks the wrong way.
> The idea that Nazis are right-wing is also kind of a modern conceit.
No, its not. I mean, except in the sense that Nazi’s are generally considered part of modern history and thus any description of them could be described as a “modern conceit”.
> When FDR was President the Democrats were the party of the Klan. Does that mean the New Deal is a right-wing program, or that the KKK is a left-wing organization?
No. It means that US parties of the time leading up to the New Deal were more strongly regional than consistently ideological (the Democratic Party had very different Northern and Southern constituencies and ideologies even before the New Deal coalition), and that the New Deal itself was the trigger for the largest, longest partisan realignment (or one of the two, though the other one was arguably only possible because the New Deal realignment was still shaking out) in US history, which only finally settled down after the secondary Civil Rights realignment to a fairly stable divisions – with a clear ideological left/right configuration – in the 1990s.
> Or maybe politics can’t be divided perfectly along a one dimensional axis
It can’t, but that doesn’t mean that any of the well-known axes of politicis don’t have things, including modern and historical political parties, that clearly fit on one side. The Nazis being one that fits clearly on the right (also, the authoritarian.)
It's not at all a modern conceit. Hitler gained power with the support of the right wing parties. Von Papen, who ensured Hitler got the chancellorship was linked to Zentrum, a right wing party that was the forerunner of Germany's current right wing CDU. The only party to vote against Hitler in the Reichstag were the social democrats (because KPD had been banned).
NSDAP had an economically left, socially right opposition originally (the Strasserists), but those who hadn't been expelled already were arrested or murdered during the Night of the Long Knives.
Meanwhile Hitler was repeatedly praised by right wing commentators and papers and seen as an enemy by the left.
To spread the fiction that the Nazis we're not seen as right wing at the time is offensive, and simply not supported by the facts.
The NSDAP was about as left-wing as Tucker Carlson.
There seems to be an ahistorical reading popular with especially Americans today that because the NSDAP called itself a "worker party" and had some left-sounding campaign promises (though mostly in the 1920s) it was a "left-wing party".
Germany had been a monarchy until the end of the first world war. "Right wing" in Weimar Germany meant "monarchist", not "free market". The monarchy was overthrown by a left-wing coalition that rapidly split into the more centrist SPD (anti-monarchists who just wanted a free republic but not challenge the social hierarchy itself) and the various socialist tendencies (anarchists, Trotskyists, Marxists, Bolsheviks, etc). The SPD also famously allowed the (monarchist and right-wing) Freikorps to kill one of the most influential socialist groups. That's all before the NSDAP was even a thing.
The NSDAP started out as a fairly uninteresting nationalist workers' party. It went through several iterations and multiple names that increasingly brought a focus on nationalism and a hyperfixation on an imagined betrayal by the leftists causing the defeat in the Great War that ultimately became part of the Jewish conspiracy theory and the idea of Cultural Bolshevism (which you may know as "Cultural Marxism"). To the NSDAP the clear enemy were the communists, the Bolshevists, but in general "the left" including the SPD. They continued using leftist rhetoric in some of their material for a while because it worked but much like Tucker Carlson ranting about coastal elites and big corporations their answer wasn't to dismantle capitalism or tax the rich.
In the end, the NSDAP heavily vilified the communist DKP and the left-wing SPD as well as the "international Jewish bankers" (who in their mind unlike the "good, German bankers" were a nomadic people in a profession they turned parasitic by extracting the wealth from the German people and bringing it outside the nation - so to them it wasn't capitalism itself that was the problem or even banking). The right-wing conservatives liked this and even pardoned Hitler after his failed coup because they thought they could use the NSDAP to crack down on the still growing socialist movements and prevent a second communist revolution like in Russia. The Enabling Act was signed by the Christian conservative "center party". The plan worked, though not quite as intended. They did however crack down on unions and many of the first people sent to the camps were socialists and queers. They also nearly invented the idea of "public-private partnerships" although they wouldn't have called them that.
Party politics change over time and thinking that "the left" must always have been what the Democrats do and "the right" what the GOP does is not only extremely centric to American history but also ignores that even today the US political spectrum has more than two parties (not to mention the vast differences between local chapters) and none of the parties can or could ever be neatly summed up as "left" or "right".
EDIT: Before someone feels like they have to point this out: yes, the SA in particular (the security volunteers of the Nazis who went on to become their paramilitary street gang) had some people with actually somewhat leftist ideas in them and some members of the NSDAP were openly gay. Upon rising to power however the NSDAP purged (i.e. murdered) most of these people. But even the "leftist" ideas tended to be hypernationalist and be tainted by their social views (e.g. eugenics, anti-Semitism, Aryanism and homophobia). This is in part why most leftists today reject any "red-brown alliance" out of principle.
EDIT2: Since some people are prone to misunderstand points made in lengthy replies: I'm not saying Tucker Carlson or the GOP would have agreed with the NSDAP. I'm saying neither Tucker Carlson, the GOP nor the NSDAP are or were left-wing and that leftist populist rhetoric can be found in right-wing politics to this day so judging the NSDAP by a small subset of its rhetoric is historically illiterate.
No, not because of that, but they where a threat to the NSDAP.
They feared a strong democracy the most and had to take a stand against the 2nd strongest party the SPD. It was like in the USSR not about left or right, but about having 100% power in one party/person.
> The idea that Nazis are right-wing is also kind of a modern conceit
This is absurd. Not only the nazi mindset fits squarely into all the far-right / ultranationalist ideas, but the nazi party even made an alliance with the fascist party in Italy.
Conservatives moved to the Republican party by the sixties. Look up Strom Thurman for example.
The Nazis had help from the left at their inception, but murdered them later to gain approval from finance and law enforcement grous to consolidate power. Look up the Night of the Long Knives. The Nazis that accomplished everything we're decidedly right-wing, despite recent attempts to reverse that impression.
> Conservatives moved to the Republican party by the sixties. Look up Strom Thurman for example.
The primary thing that happened in the 60s was that the Democrats stopped opposing the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans didn't start opposing it then, they voted for it, and it passed. It was the process of racism losing the support of both parties when it used to have one.
Strom Thurmond was a racist, butthurt that the Democrats finally betrayed him. His constituents kept reelecting him and the US only has one other party.
The problem with the narrative that the parties switched places is that most of their policies didn't change. When Strom Thurmond switched parties, Democrats didn't go from supporting the New Deal to opposing it. They didn't switch from pro-life to pro-choice or vice versa. Their policies are much the same as they were when they were the party of the Klan.
Which implies that racism and left vs. right are independent.
> The problem with the narrative that the parties switched places is that most of their policies didn’t change. When Strom Thurmond switched parties, Democrats didn’t go from supporting the New Deal to opposing it.
To the extent there was a switch, it was between the pre-New Deal alignment and the alignment after the end of the double (New Deal and Civil Rights) realignments, Thurmond was from a constituency that was with the Democrats before either realignment and that left with the Civil Rights realignment.
> Their policies are much the same as they were when they were the party of the Klan.
Their politics on racial issues aren’t the same as before the Civil Rights realignment, and their policies on economic issues and the role of the federal government outside of race aren’t the same as before the New Deal realignment; those two realignments overlapped, as the New Deal realignment hadn’t finished shaking out when the Civil Rights realignment (which itself took almost exactly 30 years to settle out after the usually-cited 1964 kickoff) started. Note that the rumblings of the Civil Rights realignment, while usually timed to 1964, were evident earlier, but no one else was welcoming the disaffected Democrats until after 1964, and the tension was very much with the new people and ideas being brought in due to the New Deal realignment.
> Their politics on racial issues aren’t the same as before the Civil Rights realignment
Residential zoning in the US came out of racism. Restrict multi-family zoning to keep black people out of white neighborhoods. Then use that to create separate school districts for rich suburban white kids and poor urban black kids and maintain de facto segregation after de jure segregation was made unconstitutional.
Predominantly Democrats control the high population density areas where these policies are relevant and it's still ongoing.
Today Democrats promote the construction of abortion clinics and subsidizing the procedure. Before they promoted the construction of abortion clinics for the explicitly stated purpose of encouraging black women to get abortions. It's a changed in the stated justification but it's not actually a policy change.
I think at this point a lot of modern Democrats don't even realize what the intended purpose of these policies was, because they don't like to talk about that for obvious reasons, but they're still the party's policies.
Republicans didn't have kkk members sitting in congress in the 21st century. Democrats did.
We can say they changed their ways til the cows come home but the democrats never extend such mercy to other politicians (for example, franken was expelled for much less than byrd)
The Nazis murdered all of the leftists in their party. Using the word "socialist" in the name as a marketing tool does not make them leftist in any sense at all.
>if you have a right/left clock Hitler stays at 11:59 and Stalin at 00:01
Stalin is so "left" that he's touches shoulder with extreme "right". Stalin and Hitler where so extreme that you cannot talk about right or left (hence the 2 minute difference)
Having a wiki page is not usually a good proxy for academic consensus, especially for a controversial topic and especially when "Criticism" is a big chunk of the article.
My "proof" is the fact that every academic I know in history, sociology, and political science laughs whenever the topic is brought up. This is across institutions.
No, I think you missed the point, it’s not a comparison today and the past, but in the past.
In the 1930’s the Democrats were the party of segregationists (clearly not a left wing position), but also the party of FDR expansion of social programs (clearly a left wing position).
There is a two part explanation. First parties are coalitions, and the segregationists might or might not have been the same people pushing the social programs. Secondly the parties in the US were much less aligned on ideological grounds at that time than they are now. Today the Republican Party is almost entirely conservative and the Democratic Party liberal, but back then the parties were much more mixed.
Bismark, a far right monarchist, introduced the first universal healthcare insurance system as a result of a combination of fear of the left and christian morality. The notion that government spending is unique to the left is a modern US conceit.
In Europe a significant proportion of the right are Christian democrats of various flavours who consider some degree of state welfare to be moral duty, and/or other non-free market conservatives, to the point where the US style right are considered extremists many places.
I used to manage solar installations, couple of things:
1. Electrically, solar does feed your house first. It interconnects before the meter and into your main electric panel. The reason it doesn't work during an outage is because of regulations requiring solar to turn off during power outages so that electricians fixing downed lines don't have surprise power from random houses after they turn off the grid power.
2. If you want solar to work during an electric outage you need to install a battery backup that can feed it AC power and disconnect it from the grid during a grid failure. However, you need a pretty big battery to power a full house for a long time so it's generally cheaper and easier to have a gas generator backup if you are worried about this. Batteries are really just good for energy arbitrage purposes these days.
