I bring a bottle of Malôrt to all holiday gatherings so everyone can have a shot together. I actually like it, but it’s always fun seeing a new person’s Malört face. Recently someone described it as tasting like boat cleaner.
It sounds like the article is mostly advocating for a “one parent to many children” scenario, where the first organizations/users example you gave would be “many to many”, and your second view example is “one child to many parents”.
If anything, a lot of these sites are more readable and toned down than many of that era, considering they’re not using a blue bubble pattern background with bright red Comic Sans text and spinning gifs everywhere. It taps into the nostalgia but of course it’s never going to feel exactly the same.
I get the exact same joys from work. Taking an old but functional and profitable codebase and cleaning it up, bringing it up to conventions and standards, refactoring. At my current job, feature work is always a thing, but I make refactoring boards and get people on board with bringing in refactor tickets every sprint, etc.
So while not 100% of my job is refactoring, a large portion is. And sometimes I convince them it’s time to rewrite one entire section or another, so a couple of sprints at a time might be dedicated to just that.
I guess I’ve gotten lucky, probably a combination of that and being outspoken about what needs to be fixed.
Or working with better people, particularly those setting the requirements. The worst code I've written/worked with has always come about because of unclear/unstable requirements.
Nationalities are a social construct, a bit of a shared delusion we all believe in. If we all stopped believing in them at the same time, they would cease to exist. That’s how they can not be “true”. Whether or not it’s useful or relevant to think that way depends on the situation. And that doesn’t mean they don’t have real consequences.
As for philosophies, he’s referring to living your life by any particular philosophy, whether or not it’s “objectively” the best way to live.
Edit: the definition I had for "nation" in my head was incorrect. My comment is based on an incorrect understanding, leaving it up since there are replies that won't make sense if I remove it.
I find it very hard to make the mental leap between religion and nationalities. I think the correct thing to actually discuss is if "nations" are true. Nationality just means you belong to a nation, by definition.
If we stopped believing in nations, people would still form groups. Groups would organise and govern, nations are reborn again.
I think as long as humans are social creatures, nations are about as "true" as you can get. They are inevitable in my opinion.
Religion on the other hand, if people stop believing in it, it ceases to exist.
> As for philosophies, he’s referring to living your life by any particular philosophy, whether or not it’s “objectively” the best way to live.
Okay, I misunderstood that part. I thought they were talking about the study of philosophy. I agree that living your life by a philosophy does not make it true. But I suspect most people that follow a particular philosophy would not claim it is "true", but maybe I'm in a bit of a bubble.
Ok, so I happen to be Austrian. A 105 years ago, Austria was a big, multiethnic empire. Still, being Austrian was a nationality, embracing what are now several countries and nations. (This is the nationality my grandparents were born into.) Back in the day, I probably would have identified as a German-Austrian. However, there are at least 3 major countries with a major population of mostly German ancestry. 32 years ago, there had been 4. But I do not identify as German. ("German" ethnicity is a construct, as well. In this particular case, according to a once famous Austrian saying, it's a mix of those left behind during the great migration.) Instead, I do identify as part of a community inhabiting a certain political territory. This territory has lost considerable parts, entire countries and nations, but it also has received regions and ethnicities from what had been the Hungarian part of the Habsburg empire. It even isn't the same political entity it had been not that long ago. Over the last century, it had been an empire, a small republic, part of the third Reich, and then a newly reconstructed republic. It had been located at the very outskirts of the Western hemisphere and is now right in the middle of a greater Europe. Still, there is identity, but this identity is undeniably fluid. – It's hard to not to observe some fluidity in the concept of nationality.
>I find it very hard to make the mental leap between religion and nationalities. I think the correct thing to actually discuss is if "nations" are true. Nationality just means you belong to a nation, by definition.
>
>If we stopped believing in nations, people would still form groups. Groups would organise and govern, nations are reborn again.
Well, nation-states didn't exist until the 19th century/late 18th century, so there's that.
Just for example, 'Italians' didn't exist until the late 19th century, and it took another 30 - 50 years for people in places like Sicily and Naples to see themselves as 'Italian': most immigrants from Italy to America spoke Sicilianu (featured in The Godfather and Boardwalk Empire) or Napolitano (featured in The Sopranos), not 'Italian', which IIRC is actually Tuscan, the language of Tuscany.
Similiar story in France, where a national identity only emerged after the Revolution and the top-down imposition of French-ness; people largely spoke their regional derivative of vulgar Latin like Occitan or Picard. Hard to talk about a 'nation' when there are around 20 regional languages spoken in your borders. 'French', as we know it, is the language of the ils-de-France urban center that was imposed on everyone else; like wise with 'Italian'.
So I don't think 'nations' are inevitable, they're a fairly recent and well-documented phenomena that we don't really have to guess about its causes and origin.
A kingdom is not a nation-state, a kingdom is a large piece of real estate whose legal identity is that of the monarch's body, or, where breaking the law is a personal attack on the King or Queen (hence, the King's peace). Even if you are King of all England, like Aethelstan was, you are not the leader of a nation because that is an altogether distinct entity, one where the law is ostensibly an expression of the unitary will and identity of the people irrespective of the offices of power (read: a constitution).
So if people don't see themselves as a unitary identity with others hundreds of miles away, the nation will cease to exist. The American Civil War was just such an incident.
Depenfs on the olace of birth, and especially in the case of Yugoslavia, his ancestry. The latter fought a couple a very nasty wars trying figure that one out.
Those people are either Czech, Slovak, Serb, Slovenes, Croat... Rather easy to answer.
What does it mean to be Czech or Slovak? At one point, those countries were combined into the nation of Czechoslovakia. Was a person born in Czechoslovakia Czech, Slovak, or Czechoslovakian? If we’re going to take ethnicity or language into account, then what does it mean to be American?
Many of those Eastern European languages are more of a sliding scale than divided by country borders. Moldovan and Romanian are basically the same thing.
I met someone on my travels from Italy who was Italian, but only spoke German, as they do in parts of Northern Italy.
Well, the idea of nation states isn't that old. Passport are pretty recent, in their current form at least. And a person can be nationless, in which case they would be eligible for a UN passport.
The definition of true is a rabit hole and spelunking its depths is not especially productive. It is more productive to replace the word with what is actually meant.
Is something part of objective material reality. Is something a valid logical inference. Is something an action which had the desired result even if the result was not caused, even indirectly, by the action itself.
It’s literally life - a living thing - inside a drop of water. What is the problem here? The title doesn’t imply anything about how curated it is or isn’t.
"Photos capture tigers, elephants and giraffes that live in the broom room"
The "drop of seawater" is just a literary construction here. This animals don't live "in a drop of seawater", they live in the ocean. They are superfast also for animals so small. I had photographed some of them and you need to apply a restrain of some type to be able to take a clear photo. They are extremely migratory animals. Even more active than birds probably, if we take in mind their relative size.
> I think the truly happy people don't go around and tell others how to be happy. They just are happy.
On the other hand, people who are happy/content see a lot of pain and suffering in other people and might wish to impart some of their own wisdom into the world. At least that’s how I feel sometimes. But if someone is trying to make a profit from the information or advice then it’s probably not coming from a good place and less likely to be legitimately useful.
reply