Feedback about a technical aspect of your blog, not about the contents of the article: unfortunately the HTML title of the page is not the title of the article, but the title of your website.
As a consequence, when I print your blogpost to a PDF file to read it offline at a later time, the filename of the saved PDF has no clues whatsoever about what the article is about.
It's probably a pirate station, deliberately broadcasting on the same frequency. Contrary to FM modulation, with AM modulation two superimposed signals one the same frequency are demodulated as if they came from one transmission.
Swan Lake was played on UVB-76 in 2010 I believe and on other occasions previously. There have been other strange sound/musics broadcasted from this location so I don't think the pirate station makes sense.
I like minimalistic tools and designs! But I don't like minimalistic documentation.
You included an example with .md files and a template, but I would like to see what Kew generated from it, without having to run the program.
How exactly does templating work in Kew? Does it fully support the 'rc' templating from Werc, or is it purely Lowdown-based with optional HTML wrappers?
Are the config options as shown in config.go the complete set, or does Kew support more config options like Werc does?
I was going to say, I did't see any opposition to capitalism :)
Thanks for posting this, people need a reminder how varied different "schools" of thought can be.
I think some of the very educated at some institutions are more likely to mistake their shared love of insulated bureaucracy, for being non-committed or having disdain for capitalism.
The main thing that struck me was the way so many multi-billion-dollar companies could learn a thing or two from this institute when it comes to the financial management skills necessary to host old web archives indefinitely without any ads, annoyances, or other friction.
In this regard, these academics really put the most aggressive capitalists to shame when it comes to some very worthwhile stewarding of assets.
Whenever you see a big company fail to keep an archive on line, you know at least one person making that decision (doing that disservice) didn't do that well in school. Regardless of what their transcript or resume looks like, their most appropriate headgear is a duncecap.
Unlike in many other countries, where provinces or regions are merely administrative divisions created to decentralize or streamline administration, the US emerged when states voluntarily came together and decided to create a country. The states were willing to outsource part of their autonomy to a federal level, on condition that guardrails were put in place to limit the power of that federal level. Those guardrails were: bicameralism, equal representation of states in the Senate, and the electoral college. The House is the voice of the people, the Senate is the voice of the states.
The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively prevents a majority of voters from large urban centers from imposing their will onto rural populations, at least at the federal level. It was designed that way.
I've seen comments here claiming that countries like Canada or France deliver better outcomes than the US. They are stronger welfare states, yes, but they also have become overly paternalistic nanny states, with heavy-handed regulations, and high taxes stifling individual initiative.
The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively allows a minority of voters from rural areas to impose their will onto large urban centers
The fact that we have minority rule in the Senate, House, and Supreme Court is exactly why we don't have any checks and balances any more and Trump gets to act like an emperor.
Again, you're saying "minority rule". But Trump (Republican) won the popular vote. So which party is the minority?
Do you have another way of determining which party is the majority/minority besides votes for the President?
It seems clear that the majority in the 2024 election preferred Republican governance, and so they gained control over President/House/Senate.
Is this a joke? You think Democrat Senators got 24 million more votes? Where are you getting these nonsense numbers?
Update
Here are some rough numbers I found quickly (because your numbers are obvious nonsense):
President
R - 77.3m - 49.8%
D - 75.0m - 48.3%
Others - 2.9m - 1.9%
Senate
D - 55.9m - 49.1%
R - 54.4m - 47.7%
Others - 3.7m - 3.2%
House
R - 74.4m - 49.8%
D - 70.6m - 47.2%
Others - 4.6m - 3.1%
Looks like the system is working to me. The Senate vote not withstanding of course because of some smaller states, but it's not some extreme miscarriage of justice as you imply. The majority party won and is currently enacting policies that voters wanted. I'm sorry that your beliefs aren't as popular as you thought.
Sorry, I copy and pasted wrong, the Democratic senators represent 24M more people, and had about 2.8M more votes, yet have 6 fewer seats counting the independents that caucus with the Dems.
So fewer voters and constituents for a pretty significant majority in senators.
No, the _minority_ vote argument still holds. The Republican senators represent a minority of the vote and population, yet have a strong majority in the Senate. It's minority rule.
Again, you're mistaking a Senator representing a state vs the people in a state. The Senator represents the state, no matter if they got 51% or 100%.
What makes you say that Republican senators represent a minority of the population?
There is no real way to determine the population in each state represented by a party other than votes. The presidential vote tallies (the only truly national vote) are the closest we have to this. Numbers in the Senate are fairly close to the popular vote (not a coincidence).
Do you have a better way of determining which party is the "majority" in Congress? That is what we are discussing here. Whether the current makeup of Congress accurately represents the votes of the people or not.
Obviously I understand that not every person voted in the election (many are not even eligible). It is simply not relevant to this conversation, and is an often trotted out diversion meant to diminish the mandate given by the actual voters.
In this case it’s much simpler: the question was minority rule and you can see that power in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches is held by Republican politicians representing less than a majority—Trump is arguably the best claim they have on plurality since he is come very close to winning the popular vote since so many Democrats stayed home—and enacting policies which are very unpopular, in most cases policies which are unpopular even among registered Republicans.
reply