That's exactly it. Taste, you either have it or you don't.
NeXTSTEP was good enough to pass the Steve Jobs taste test. Outside of Apple products, I double anything you consider "aesthetically pleasing" could say the same.
Who manages the organization? Where does the buck stop? The statement is "more so than" the individual, not the binary option you provided.
I get that you're offended by my complaints, I don't want to be a messenger of total cynicism and I apologize if I haven't framed my experience in a way that's more helpful to you. I like Andrew personally, I support the majority of his ideology. He's a bad manager and my experience working deeply within the campaign, the volunteer orgs, the SM accounts, the Discord, etc, has proven this to me to my sincere displeasure many many times. Hell - he's written about it over and over again himself.
That doesn't mean he's not worth supporting if he's who inspires you to engage with the political structure of the nation though. Whatever works. There are WAY MORE good people out there than there are good managers, and Andrew's just a plainly good person individually. His institutional aptitude isn't great though.
Hope I got my intention across, apologies if I'm fumbling. I don't mean to be a grouch, but I've seen reliance on the central pillar of "Andrew Yang" waste so much of the energy his ideology inspires.
In a sense, this kind of confirms some of the instinctive, "left wing" suspicion that Yang's a naive "enlightened centrist" type. Inclination to bring in experts and consultants to run things via "best practices" and such. The equivalent of hiring Deloitte to tell you how to restructure your operations.
It's the kind of thing that stings a lot of left wing movements, which is now why they are now all crazy paranoid of being "co-opted."
It might be interesting to see if forward learns, or repeats the error.
Andrew is a smart guy, and he seems to come up with smart ideas when he focuses on them. OTOH, he seems to overlook other things and then default to a generic. A party is not a corporation or even a non profit, at least a democratic party can't be. You can't just hire employees, appoint executives and run it like that.
I think americans have difficulty envisioning a party. You have so few. Republicans and Democrats are so old, big and established that it's impossible to imagine them without a ton of power. The libertarians & whatnot are so quirky that they seem more like a convention than a political party.
Ultimately though, a party is a political club. There are members. They interact with one another, nominate candidates, develop policies & such. There's always/usually a two tier system. Actual candidates, campaign managers and whatnot obviously have more power, are more engaged, etc. But, at least the concept of membership exists. It's not supposed to operate as a fan club. It isn't the Foo Fighters.
I heard some of his interview. He has policy ideas. I didn't hear him say anything about the party itself, or got the impression that he has thought about it much.
> Andrew eventually stole the pac's name and branding - Humanity Forward - put everyone out of a job
"Not left, not right, forward" had been Andrew's slogan throughout his presidential campaign. The PAC may have come up with it (I have no knowledge either way), but it is as much Andrew's branding as it is the PAC's.
As to putting everyone out of a job, I had no idea that Andrew, or any candidate, could guarantee someone a lifetime job once they joined his PAC.
Andrew's presidential bid ultimately failed. There's bound to be disappointments all around. But your allegations ring hollow base on this comment alone.
> He clearly doesn’t have a record of success as an executive, either in private or public sectors.
You could say the same thing about Obama in 2008.
> He seems like a nice guy. If he wants to get into politics, why not start as a city councilor or something?
Nice job damning with faint praise there, well done!
Guess what, he's already in politics. He ran a wildly influential campaign for the Democratic presidential candidacy, and was a top contender in the NYC mayoral race. How many people "wanting to get into" politics could claim to have done that?
The Android API is primarily geared towards constructing GUIs declaratively in XML, and as with anything infected with the XML plague, it's a huge bloated mess half of which is braindead useless.
I honestly can't blame anyone for screaming in horror and running away to ReactJS, or just anything else.
XML is like democracy, anything else that tries to replace it, does a lousy job getting comments, schema validation, streaming parser libraries and IDE tooling.
May I be safe from React as much as possible.
In any case, Composer just hit stable for all of those Kotlin lovers.
Maybe XML could be the right tool for some jobs, it's just that the entire industry have searched for these jobs for the past two decades, and very few have turned up.
In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem, and it's still looking.
GUI construction? XML is the wrong tool here again, but not for lack of trying. Tech powerhouses Google and Microsoft got caught up in the hype as well. The results, the Android API and XAML, speak for themselves, negatively.
> XML is like democracy
No it's not. Please don't bring politics into technical discussions, it clouds your judgement.
> It is called handover in English, but somehow in Chinese it is return to china or hand back to china.
The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them.
Somehow? That's how.
> Only New Territories belongs to the them, not Kowloon or HK Island
Kowloon and HK Island had always been Chinese territory. The British defeated China in a series of wars, mostly for the right to sell opium in China, and took them as spoils.
When China became strong enough to defeat the British, they wanted them back, and there's nothing the British could do except handing them back.
Just as I suspected, you did know the history, you were just feigning ignorance.
So I suspect you do know the relevant internation laws as well. But allow me to quote myself:
> The UK recognizes the PRC as the successor regime of China, and thus the rightful owner of all that's due of the UK to China under the various treaties between them.
You are free to live in your make-believe world in which Kowloon and HK island were never part of China. The rest of us? We live in the real world.
>You are free to live in your make-believe world in which Kowloon and HK island were never part of China.
Qing Dynasty?
And forget about the history part, It is rather obvious you dont know the difference between China the country or land ruling under CCP or China itself as an entire entity.
I think you're being downvoted because the title of the post is The "Granny Knot", and your wording sounds like you're saying Ian claims he invented the "Granny Knot".
But obviously you're talking about the "Ian knot". My wife taught me this knot about 20 years ago. She grew up in China and had been tying her shoelaces this way since primary school.
Ian claims to have invented the knot in 1982. Now it's conceivable that the "Ian knot" took the world by storm and spreaded to China quickly, but seeing it's the pre-Internet era, I highly doubt it. I myself had never heard of it until I saw her do it.
So it's likely Ian independently discovered the knot, more so than him being the first person to ever come up with it.
Did you come up with this knot yourself 45 years ago, or did you learn it from someone else?
That's exactly it. Taste, you either have it or you don't.
NeXTSTEP was good enough to pass the Steve Jobs taste test. Outside of Apple products, I double anything you consider "aesthetically pleasing" could say the same.