Ignoring for a moment that most websites don't need any interactivity: Even for those that need it, for almost any of them something JQuery-like is more than enough. You really, really, really don't need the latest super big framework.
The jQuery spaghetti of the past seems worse than the React spaghetti of today. Too many unpredictable side effects. Changing one thing breaks something else. On business-scale timeframes, you can't clean it up.
React enjoyed its spot in the limelight. Then, unskilled people wrote bad React and the framework, not rank-and-file developers, took the credibility hit. It is more difficult, I suppose, to make a user-perceived slow webpage in jQuery.
I dispute this. I don't have any statistics either, but my subjective experience is that most websites are not like newspapers or blogs. Even shopping websites have pretty heavy interactivity these days.
Also, most boring pure-information-presentation problems are mostly solved by ancient technologies like wordpress. If you're working in web development in 2026, you probably aren't making static websites or blogs. You're doing something novel that probably has much higher interactivity demands.
Easy: Zero. What you describe as "desperate people" are people who would already die without "yolo[ing] on themselves", so, by definition, the worst outcome is that they still die.
> Oh, by the way, any indication that nobody roleplayed the Israeli side?
The description implies that nobody did:
> Seaside Prison is a Palestinian-Finnish-Norwegian larp that deals with the siege of Gaza trough an alternative reality setting where the situation on Åland Islands resembles that of real world Gaza. Two ordinary families live as neighbours in Marienhamn. Their family drama and wedding preparations are interrupted by bombings in which some of the family members are killed.
For the same reason Wikipedia suffers: People who are really good at writing factual content / good answers are not automatically good at moderation, often they are even some of the worst people for it. Moderation needs empathy, thinking about edge cases, dealing with emotions and so on. Making the people who have the most points on a Q&A site your moderators was always a recipe for disaster.
For a long time, the sheer usefulness of SO overshadowed all of this. People were willing to suffer for the sake of getting a result. But over time the quality couldn't keep up with the pure agony of having to deal with petty dictators. And finally, people just stopped going there, which means the chance that the best answer will be on SO is getting smaller, which means even less people bother with it and so on.
Solr. The correct answer is Solr. All the search features of Elasticsearch (both are built on Lucene, which provides the actual search implementation) without the problems that Elastic (the company) or Elasticsearch (the product) brings with it. 99% of companies using Elasticsearch would be far better of with Solr.
Solr will work perfectly if you want to do a standard search (db, shop) or need a customized approach, like custom transformers, ranking, etc. However, if you aim for "something that just works good enough" and has much better scaling capability and tooling, you can't beat ES/OpenSearch here (Solr scaling is much more manual process than ES/OS). And if you want to stay away from ElasticSearch drama, stick to OpenSearch - they are shipping excellent stuff these days.
Solr is seen (probably unfairly) as passé by many people.
I used Solr back in 2008-2009 or so and it did a great job, but people didn't like that it used XML rather than JSON. Then we had a requirement for something like Elasticsearch's percolate query functionality, which Solr didn't support. So we switched, and subsequent projects I've joined have all used ES.
So now in addition to the "does it do the job?" question, teams might also ask "can we hire and retain people to work with this technology rather than the more popular alternative?".
While I agree with your comment I'd like to point out that the reason the youth is leaving is not this policy, but that there are no jobs for them. At least none that you really want to live on. That's a problem "digital nomads" are expected to not have: They have their job somewhere else, so who cares if the local job market is garbage? Though I don't think this will work out in the long term.
Sounds like a reasonable judgement - even if the parties didn't come to a compromise themselves - would have been to just swap lots. Lots 115 should be empty, cause the building that should be there is on 114. So, swap the deeds and be done with it.
(Unless lot 115 is completely different to 114, but doesn't sound that way)
That sort of precedent seems like it will just lead to abuse. Buy a less desirable plot of land, 'accidentally' build on a nicer plot near by, force the owner of the nicer plot to hand over their land to you (Since they're just a bit different and not "completely different").
I'm pretty sure judges can reasonably find the difference between willfulness and accident (as the article states, multiple people who had no reason to help the builder missed the error) and decide accordingly.
But why should you be rewarded for your fuckup by taking my land from me? Why should I be punished for doing nothing wrong by being forced to take a possibly lesser plot of land.
That is reasonable ONLY if the party who owns the lot is willing to trade (possibly with some extra compensation for their trouble). However I see not reason to expect someone to trade their land just because someone else wants to.
reply