For what it's worth, I use Vistaprint. That's not based on an extensive comparison, just that it always works for me and seems comparable in price and quality to other services.
Ah yes. The American left, which controls zero of the branches of the federal government and a minority of states, is yet somehow still running things behind the scenes. It spends vast sums on elections, which is somehow important even though they don't actually win.
This article does pretty much talk about the past when they did control the government. It's also been well known that the left has spent more money in all of the elections for a long time. Kamala spent over $1B on her campaign which was much more than Trump.
I'd like to find out if the dollar figures in the article are correct -- that tells the real story.
I'm not sure of the degree to which the two party system is a problem for state legislatures. It's an obvious problem at the federal level, but you do still stand a chance of knowing your local legislator to the state. When the constituents and representatives are just abstractions to each other, of course a party comes in to act as a middle layer.
But I do like the idea of list systems. Geographic districts are an artifact of slow communications, which don't exist any more. My neighbors and I have fewer overlapping interests than they did in the past.
You really can't, not without also swearing off a ton of genuine content. You can swear off the Internet entirely, and maybe that's a net win, but other than that you're almost certain to encounter slop. And it may take longer than you like to sort the wheat from the chaff.
No, of course not. But the question is, do you need a database?
A database is a big proposition: transactions, indexes, query processing, replication, distribution, etc. A fair number of use cases are just "Take this data and give it back to me when I ask for it".
ES (or any other not-a-database) might not be a full-bore DBMS. But it might be what you need.
Rule of thumb: Whenever you think you don't need relational database features, you will later discover why you do.
The one thing relational databases don't have, that you might need, is scaling. Maintaining data consistency implies a certain level of non-concurrency. Conversely, maintaining perfect concurrency implies a certain level of data inconsistency.
The other thing relational databases don't have, that you are definitely going to need, is a practical implementation.
You could maybe consider Rel if you have a particular type of workload, but, realistically, just use a tablational database. It will be a lot easier and is arguably better.
Not a curse word, but a target of automoderation algorithms.
It's hard to know what actually is and isn't included -- they don't really use simple keyword matches. But it's a kind of affectation to say "Hey, I know this word might be moderated against so I'll use a euphemism for it". (See also: unalive)
I think it's kind of pretentious, a way of calling attention to yourself as subverting some kind of authority. But the kids always try to piss us olds off with their language, so my opinion means less than nothing here.
Does anything really need to be built for that? From the first moment, you were only interested in a fraction of the Web. There has been a constant arms race between the search engines and the optimizers. We have always relied on suggestions from friends to sort out the "good" content (for whatever definition of "good").
There's much more total stuff now, and probably the fraction of "good" stuff is much smaller. But the total amount of it as at least as high.
Are the Greenlanders really up for a guerilla war? Resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan was driven by a common religion and a long history of wars.
If Greenland really did become a state, they'd actually have a fair bit of political power. At least, until oil companies shipped in tens of thousands of employees. I can't see the Greenlanders laying IEDs for American troops, but I suppose I can see them making life very, very hard for civilians.
Trump has been very open in his admiration of Andrew Jackson and emulating him. Its no mystry what would happen to the Greenlanders if Trump took Greenland.
I doubt it raises the costs of invasion very much. I don't expect the Danish to fight to the last man. If shooting starts, they will evacuate quickly.
But it meant that the US will have fired shots at NATO soldiers, rather than just walking in and declaring themselves in charge. That raises the political and economic stakes, if not the military ones.
It's making absolutely clear that this means the end of NATO, and puts all EU/US relationships in doubt. It could even mean that we were automatically at war. They're hoping that somebody around the President will consider that too high a price to pay. Which is a long shot, but is probably the least-worst option.
Probably not higher than in my lifetime, because I lived through the Cold War and nuclear annihilation seemed like a serious possibility more than once.
But definitely higher than any time since 1990. With a possible exception for the days immediately after 9/11, when it seemed like there might be follow-ups.
reply