191–200 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
I'm absolutely blown away by the speed of this website. Facebook and Twitter are a bloated heavy mess in comparison. I just registered for an account and I'm getting super nostalgic. Really well done! Edit: here's my profile in case someone wants to add me :) https://spacehey.com/mrzool
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Server side rendered content is better in nearly all cases. From some reason people think that offloading html/css rendering to users is somehow faster. It really isn't. My home site is faster to access half way across the world served from a raspberry pi than twitter is.
Client side rendered won't be faster all things being equal since they'll have to make at least an extra round trip request after the initial (html/js/css) requests for data from the API, but it should definitely be much cheaper since you can lean on the client's compute rather than solely your own servers. Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have controversial views This is nowhere controversial. Try to be a constitutional originalist in the Sillicon Valley / tech sites, and we'll continue this conversation...
> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
No, an originalist doesn't treat the unamended text as sacred, they (in principal) treat the original meaning (textualist) or intent (intentionalist) of the current, amended text as controlling.
Also, you don't understand the 3/5 compromised which has nothing to do with the worth of a black person. It had to do with how much voting power free Whites should get on account of having enslaved Blacks; the free states mostly thought the answer ought to be zero, the slave states thought it ought to be equal to one free citizen per slave held, and the 3/5 compromised was the compromise to keep the two sides in one system.
Saying that it represents a Black person being worth 3/5 of a White person makes it sound like you think that it would be more just of they had taken the position the slavers proposed, since that, apparently, would make Blacks of equal value to Whites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> originalist You mean the folks who think a black person is worth 3/5th of a white person? Yeah I imagine they have it rough.
You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text. And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the W…
The 13th, actually (it determined how chattel slaves were counted in apportionment, and the 13th abolished chattel slavery, so there were no chattel slaves to count.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Client side rendered won't be faster all things being equal since they'll have to make at least an extra round trip request after the initial (html/js/css) requests for data from the API, but it should definitely be much cheaper since you can lean on the client's compute rather than solely your own servers. Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast e…
Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast enough No, users are being forced to choose between not using those services, and using something which is clearly getting worse. There are plenty of complaints, yet the self-centered developers just don't care since they know the users will keep eating whatever shit they put out. (...and in the case of Reddit, the e…
Lost it at Mark Zuckerberg’s profile pic in /Browse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Server side rendered content is better in nearly all cases. From some reason people think that offloading html/css rendering to users is somehow faster. It really isn't. My home site is faster to access half way across the world served from a raspberry pi than twitter is.
Client side rendered won't be faster all things being equal since they'll have to make at least an extra round trip request after the initial (html/js/css) requests for data from the API, but it should definitely be much cheaper since you can lean on the client's compute rather than solely your own servers. Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast e…
The only part you offload is the rendering of the final html/css. Your servers still need to serve the raw html/css, the js and the api requests. The difference between that and server rendered html is so small as to be a rounding error even for google.
>Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail
Tolerance and popularity are two different things. And old reddit is still incredibly popular despite not having an update in three years.
The only time you should even think about using client side rendering is when you need an application that is seamless. Other than maps, office and full blown desktop environments there is no reason to ever use client side rendering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're forgetting a aspect: the Constitutional clause has been superseded by the 14th Amendment. So in this case, an originalist would rule based on the Amendment, not the just Constitution's original text. And this display a crucial point, there is a legal process to amend the Constitution not relying on a few scholars re-re-re-interpretation. I'm all for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, as long as it's the W…
The point is that originalism relies on the idea that the Constitution was a nearly flawless document worth preserving in its original form with a couple adjustments, where in reality it was a deeply, deeply flawed document that has been patched repeatedly to a workable state but still has serious shortcomings.
No, it doesn't. It is simply the idea that the legal impact of an enactment is set by the meaning (for the textualist form or originalism) or intent (for the intentionalist form of originalism) of the law when passed (whether you are referring to a statute or the Constitution or anything else.)
It has nothing to do with belief about the merits of the Constitution prior to subsequent amendments.