Is that really optimal? It is already true in that case that your colour schemes do not work for people with opinionated colour settings. Isn't this just relying on a quirk? The point of not using truecolor is to respect the colour preferences of the user.
Semantic styles limit the use - not all interfaces need e.g. "error" context. Take, for example, Task Warrior interface. There is no place for the "error" semantics in it. But there's a place for "critical task" semantics, which is usually also some shade of red.
Do you truly believe Switzerland is at risk of an Islamic invasion? How do people on a platform such as HN fall for such obviously falsifiable statements? The initiative is obviously part of the global right-wing populist trend. Countries in the EU are dependent on immigration for maintaining their economies and public infrastructure as the population ages. I'm not Swiss, but the current government in Sweden has been going through with similar anti-criminal/anti-bad-immigrant (racist) politics and rethoric for four years now. As a result, there are now elderly care centers in parts of the country where 25% of all personnel have been expelled, children and even babies are taken back to their "home countries" without their parents and major domestic industry organisations are turning on the politicians they have fostered as the detrimental economic policies are killing low-wage industries in Sweden.
I don't know if you've lived in an Islamic country but I have. In fact I was born there and spent more than half my life under Islamic law. More to it, I am the same brown minority that you seek to defend by posting this.
Westerners are so naive, Islam's objective is to grow and convert as many people as possible. To this end, they have been building mosques all over the world, increasing their population and weaponizing immigration. There is a reason Muslim countries don't allow Christians, Jews and other faiths to flourish in their homes.
Now, is this applicable to all Muslims? Of course not. But don't be naive and think that no one has an agenda. Case in point, my family has Muslims (Shia) and there are some of them I wouldn't want in the West.
No one is advocating for an immigration ban here, or is attempting to bar Muslims. Suggesting caps and enforcing sane limits is a good thing. Nations need to vet their applicants thoroughly before letting them in.
As a final note, I think that immigration is a band-aid for the population collapse in the West. The real issue is the underlying culture change. Perhaps a better avenue is to focus inward and promoting family values instead of outwards to resolve the issue?
Perhaps a better avenue is to focus inward and promoting family values instead of outwards to resolve the issue?
Inwards is the right answer, but it's not about lack of family values. It's the lack of stability and belief that people can give a good life to their offspring. We need to retreat from this capitalistic consume everything social structure and kids will naturally flow.
The problem with that is that the Pandora's box has been opened. We are trading with globalized world.
Europeans first stole the resources that fed the industrial revolution and enriched themselves at the loss of everybody else. Then with the US forced everyone to be part of "line always goes up" club, with extreme violence at the times.
You cannot just "exit" the club now. All rare metals, fruits, various produce, chemicals, clothing etc are sourced with the global trade network. Since everybody has to be in the "line goes up or else" club, (we) Europeans have to continue the saga to not lose the entire civilization we have now. Nobody except very big nations with rich resources can afford pulling the plug and be self sufficient.
If you are not joining the ponzi scheme, you cannot buy shit. Without buying rare elements you cannot make advanced silicon, computers, solar cells, batteries. All engineering, medicine, food needs the ruthless capitalism. You cannot quit without turning the world upside down again. And who are you going to force through the inevitable meat grinder?
> To this end, they have been building mosques all over the world, increasing their population and weaponizing immigration ... Now, is this applicable to all Muslims? Of course not. But don't be naive and think that no one has an agenda.
As opposed to the Catholic Church never ever building Basilicas and Cathedrals? Places of worship are social and political centers given how Abrahamic religions work.
> There is a reason Muslim countries don't allow Christians, Jews and other faiths to flourish in their homes.
Met a Copt the other day: Seemed content and had no complains. Spoke to a Rūm a while ago, and despite the recent turn of events, they seemed optimistic about the Levant. The only Assryian I know complained about the US-led war on Iraq uprooting their lives more than any previous regime. That isn't to say there aren't issues, but which society is without them? Especially when exaggerators & hypocrites are in no short supply, regardless of their socio-religious allegiance.
"I don't know if you've lived in an Islamic country but I have. In fact I was born there and spent more than half my life under Islamic law"
are you aware that not all islamic countries are the same, just as all christian countries are not the same. Perhaps you've let your view of your bubble in your home country colour your view of all others. I've been to muslim countries, most people don't care all that much about the west - certainly not enough to make a conspiracy to destroy it with immigration or whatever.
"Islam's objective is to grow and convert as many people as possible"
is it? says who? Why do you think there is one unified islam with one goal? As far as I'm aware, islam is not a prosetylising religion, who's out to convert who?
"building mosques all over the world"
yes when a bunch of religious people are in a place, they build a place of worship. From your comment history, you're apparently iranian - what exactly is sinister about building mosques?
"increasing population"
yes people like to do that, it's a rather enjoyable process, not exactly mindblowing thing to accuse people of.
"weaponizing immigration"
how? who is doing that? are these governments deliberately sending people over? Who are they sending? Why has no leak of this conspirary ever happened? Are multiple governments independantly doing this?
"There is a reason Muslim countries don't allow Christians, Jews and other faiths to flourish in their homes."
flourish in what sense? many muslim countries have other faiths there. These are the people of the book afterall. Some countries have sharia law that applies only to muslims - harsher laws only for the majority religion.
"No one is advocating for an immigration ban here, or is attempting to bar Muslims"
Yes people are, don't be naive, this is absolutely about muslims.
"promoting family values"
Or maybe the real reason people aren't having kids are climate anxiety and economic factors. It's not that people just suddenly hate families now. What do you even mean by "family values", send woman back to the kitchen and that'll make people have kids? I doubt that's what you mean so what is your solution?
>>"Islam's objective is to grow and convert as many people as possible" is it? says who?
Do you not learn anything about Islam in schools where you live? I'm sure you must have spent at least few hours at History class covering Islam expansion starting with Mohamed.
>> What do you even mean by "family values", send woman back to the kitchen and that'll make people have kids? I doubt that's what you mean so what is your solution?
You want more people from cultures who think exactly like that. You believe Muslim women should be baby factories for the West.
"Do you not learn anything about Islam in schools where you live? I'm sure you must have spent at least few hours at History class covering Islam expansion starting with Mohamed."
I am ex-muslim, I am aware of islamic history. And what of it? Do christians want to crusade for the levant still? Why are you pointing to literal ancient history?
"You want more people from cultures who think exactly like that"
Many don't think like this. I do not want or not want them.
"You believe Muslim women should be baby factories for the West."
No I don't, why would you think otherwise?
On second though, you simply extracted what things you could best insult me with from my reply and put words in my mouth, I will no longer be engaging in this. Goodbye.
I think they have a right to decide how they want their values and culture to be defined, and they can choose to start enforcing those at any given moment in however way they deem appropriate and necessary. Yes, it’s unfortunate to need immigration for your economy, but not at the sake of your values, customs, traditions, and principles.
I modestly propose a much better solution. 99% of perpetrators of sexual assault are men. Let's just ban all males regardless of race. Given the statistics, why would you want any men in your country?
Banning a gender is much less practical than banning people from another country (I'm not explicitly defending the parent - analogies are just mostly bad and distracting).
you're free to have your own opinion based on your experiences here, but i wouldn't blame anyone for feeling that way. for the record, i don't think dang or anybody is a transphobe, but i have to imagine the culture here is pretty off-putting to trans people
i don't think it's that "wild". sure, i'm not so cynical as to feel hn's become a nazi bar or anything, but i am willing to recognize that some of the incidents i've witnessed could be reason enough for a trans person to want to avoid this site.
> It's neutral to this topic, it's about tech.
this thread began by xe bringing up failures in moderation affecting trans people
That isn't how it works. The presence of neutral allies doesn't somehow counterbalance and cancel out the transphobia. If a platform allows transphobic users - as Hacker News does because transphobia isn't against the guidelines - and transphobia is common in threads where trans issues or people are a subject (and it is) then it's a hostile platform to trans people.
Asking trans people to ignore this is like asking Jews to be comfortable in a bar where only ten percent of the patrons are Nazis. Arguing that "well not everyone is a Nazi" doesn't help, an attitude of "we're neutral about Nazis, we serve drinks to anyone" still makes it a Nazi bar, just implicitly rather than explicitly.
I'd agree with this logic if we were discussing all kinds of different topics here, and one's stance on gender would be immediately visible to anyone. But I can't remember the last time the matters of gender were discussed here at all, and pretty sure anything openly transphobic would be flagged or deleted pretty soon.
>I'd agree with this logic if we were discussing all kinds of different topics here, and one's stance on gender would be immediately visible to anyone.
We do discuss all kinds of different topics here. Despite what many people here want to believe, Hacker News isn't exclusively for tech and tech-related subjects.
>and pretty sure anything openly transphobic would be flagged or deleted pretty soon.
But not banned, that's the problem. The guidelines are extremely pedantic but nowhere is bigotry, racism, antisemitism or transphobia mentioned as being against those guidelines. You might say that shouldn't be necessary, but it's weird that so much effort is put into tone policing specific edge cases but the closest the guidelines come to defending marginalized groups is "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity." Transphobia is treated as a mere faux pas on the same par as being too snarky, or tediously repetitive. The real transgression being not the bigotry but "trampling curiosity." Any trans person who posts here knows that bigots who hate them and want to do them harm aren't going to suffer meaningful consequences (especially if they just spin up a green account) and that the culture here isn't that concerned about their safety.
Read the green account just below me. That sort of thing happens all the time. Yes, the comment is [dead] but why should a trans person be comfortable here, or consider themselves welcome, knowing that this is the kind of thing they'll encounter?
I'm not in a position to tell marginalized people how they should feel, but a moderation policy that wouldn't even allow offensive messages by new accounts appear for a short time would make this place into another social media - walled off and tracking their users. I understand the point though.
This is a ludicrous example. Being in the physical presence of somebody who hates you and may want to kill you is quite different than being on a forum with them. Any person who may want to harm a transperson cannot jump through the cables and attack somebody.
Lots of websites assume you are located in the country where your IP address is, and thus apply the rules for that country. So perhaps if someone wanted to use heuristics instead of uploading an ID, they could pretend to be in the UK by using a VPN.
Legislatively, the UK is among the stricter regimes wrt online age verification. It's a place you want to be VPNing out of. Discord is apparently rolling this out worldwide out of their own free will, not due to legislative pressures.
reply