I have shied away from certain designs because Google has very specific ideas about how a site should be structured, rooted in the pre- web app days. If Google had real competition, they would adapt to better index "modern" designs and architectures. Instead, developers/designers have to limit ourselves if we want Google to not only index our content, but not penalize our rankings.
Well, that or look at your headers and serve the googlebot what it expects, and show everyone else what you actually want to show - as long as it's not too different content-wise.
When I'm performing a precise search, where the search engine should do exactly what I tell it, I use Duck Duck Go. I use Google when I want to rely on their "smart" algorithms. Basically I default to DDG, and if I'm not finding the results I want, I see if Google's magic can do better.
That's not actionable. The dark part here is the serious threat of applying oppressive prior restraint policies at will. Employing machine learning in the process would only offer a false sense of legitimacy.
JSX is very close to HTML. Maybe the issue is expecting designers who have zero dev skills to build front ends in a time of responsive design and rich JS interfaces. You wouldn't hire a print designer with no Photoshop experience to design a site, and you shouldn't hire a graphic designer with no web dev skills to build front ends. If you're team is really well formed, you might have an experienced graphic designer, a UX expert, and a front end developer who does the actual building as well as making day-to-day design decisions. The design/interface experts would work at a higher level of creating an overarching design language and UX guidelines.
You didn't present your argument in meme form, not sure you're going to change any minds...
When a negative tendency must be negated, there are always people who pretend the negation is no different. It's a question of what/who not to tolerate, and why -- the answer doesn't fit in an image macro or on a bumper sticker, just as it can't be packaged in a word like "intolerance".
They believe the left not tolerating their "different opinions" cancels out their "different opinions" of not tolerating people because of their race, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc.
A sizeable portion of the modern Left definitely say that believing in the concept of borders and controlled immigration is intolerance – and thus unacceptable – but fail to see that it is an opinion, not a fact. This is one area where the modern Left nears actual fascists, by (conveniently for them) labelling some arbitrary opinions as “invalid”.
Another opinion is to call it intolerance to have doors and locks in homes. What, you don't tolerate trespassers there? Should that intolerance be tolerated?
You're attacking imaginary straw men. And you're throwing around words whose definition you don't understand.
Instead of stereotyping and attacking large diverse groups of people like you're attempting to do, let's talk about someone who really exists, and whose words are on the record, not a hypothetical subject for debate.
Calling Mexicans "rapists" is intolerance.
Do you tolerate people who brag about grabbing women by the "pussy"?
Is the opinion that you can get away with sexual assault if you're rich a valid opinion?
No I'm not (on both counts). But you're switching the subject... (There is nothing to be gained from this discussion, not that I didn't know it from the start.)
Not allowed stances and opinions are certainly a facet of fascism, and the connection I stated earlier is sound. You may want to re-read what I wrote earlier if you think I described someone or some people as fascists.
FTR I don't have a problem with consensual sexual acts (including groping).
Again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the word "fascist".
You're saying it's "fascist" to not tolerate Trump sexually assaulting women, just because he holds the opinion (and openly brags about it) that it's ok for him to do that because he's rich, therefore we are required to respect and tolerate his opinion.
FTR, Trump was not bragging about "consensual sexual acts", he was bragging about non-consensual sexual assault, and you certainly know that. Why are you being so evasive and coy, trying to divert the conversation, when we both know exactly what I'm talking about? Address Trump's own words that are on the record, not another straw man. And please don't parrot the line about "locker room talk".
Do you tolerate Trump non-consensually grabbing women by the "pussy", and do you respect his stated opinion that he can get away with it because he's rich, and believe that's valid and tolerable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "fascist"?
Letting someone do something to you is NOT consenting. Are you saying that rape victims consent to sex when they let their rapists penetrate them?
Despite your quotation marks, you actually misquoted him, and left out a lot of extremely relevant context.
<s>It must take a lot of bravery to stand up and carry the water for Trump's right to commit (and brag about) sexual assault by misquoting him out of context.</s>
Read the entire literal quote in context:
"You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Please explain how it is consensual if Trump doesn't "even wait", and he thinks he can do "anything"?
Would you tell your daughter it was OK for Trump to kiss her and grab her by the pussy and anything else he wanted to do, without waiting for her consent, because he was "a star"?
I wouldn't let you or any other Trump surrogate near my daughter, because you have a lot to learn about consent. You and Trump both need to read this before kissing and grabbing any more women by the pussy without waiting for consent:
Consent, explained for Donald Trump.
Trump and his surrogates don’t seem to understand how sexual assault works.
The FBI now defines rape as "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." When it comes to sexual assault, like the unwanted kissing or groping that Trump is accused of, different states have different legal definitions of "consent" — but consent is always relevant.
Legal definitions can vary, but the fundamental concept of consent is incredibly simple: Does the other person actually want you to do the things you are doing to her?
When Trump says women "let" him do "anything," he’s not describing consensual activity. He’s describing, at best, touching a woman without encountering physical resistance from her — or using his power and influence to subtly coerce her into not resisting. Coercion is not consent either, from a legal perspective or a moral one.
There are a lot of reasons victims might not physically resist or even verbally object to unwanted sexual touching. They might simply have no time to react (time that Trump said he doesn’t give them: "Just kiss. I don’t even wait"). They might be confused or in shock. They might be afraid of physical violence, emotional abuse, or other repercussions (like being fired) if they don’t comply.
That’s why brute physical force doesn’t determine whether an attack counts as sexual assault. Unwanted and nonconsensual touching does.
It just means the authority is relevant. If you pull out Merriam Webster in an argument about the meaning of the term "racism", you are appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Appealing to authority is a logical shortcut, like any other fallacy, and in a way can be thought of as memoization. Every single logical fallacy has an efficient purpose, but departs from pure logic.
Linux Action Show (LAS) is pretty conversational in its format, if the Linux world interests you. Make sure to share on social media because apparently Jupiter Broadcasting's metrics don't balance growth with existing subscriber base very well...
Yeah, IMO it's mostly about convincing non-technical people that, while they know what they want, you know what they need and are able to provide it. If you're not doing this, your boss is.
