> For the life of me I don’t understand why people absolutely insist on using JavaScript to render HTML. Backend frameworks do HTmL just fine.

There’s an entire universe of front-end developers who don’t even know JavaScript. React is the only thing they’ve ever touched and they’re completely helpless without it.

You can't write React without Javascript. Even the most basic React demos require you to write JS, if only to increment a counter.

Perhaps they don't really "know" the entire monstrosity of Javascript, but that's a tall order. JS is such a big language, with so many redundant features, that most developers will use only a fraction of it.

> I'm not saying this product is good, it's looks interesting but in reality will suck (due to not being able to just close the laptop)

It's one of those situations where the more seamless they make the experience, the quicker the user will end up totalling either the laptop screen / hinges or the touchscreen. Given the position of the connector and how people generally close laptops, it's the perfect lever to crack something.

It's perfectly reasonable for a Swede to invest in miltech, given current political climate. In fact, it would be irresponsible not to.

About a decade ago, a mobile gaming company I was at, accidentally shipped a full-screen ad without the art asset for the close button, so the button was invisible. The ad basically forced users to visit the in-app store for a moment before they could close it.

The sad part is that day we broke all previous daily revenue records.

Pretty sure this is a form of ad fraud and the people who paid for those ads would be really mad at you e.g. if it were a CPC campaign

I don't understand why we don't have a law that specifies an operating-system level input that will always close an ad.

No hunting for tiny X's. No shifting DOM to dodge clicks. Hit Esc and it stops. For iOS and Android force it as part of the UI, like the volume buttons, back/home buttons.

"accidentally".

It seems that quite a few mobile gaming companies make this mistake. Or they "accidentally" set the click area of the button offset from the graphic, or very very small.

> I never understand how people bought the propaganda on this. Why would anybody think Russia would blow up a pipeline that they spent years and billions of dollars building? It requires completely rejecting all logic.

Wouldn't be the first time Russia to make a bold move that blows up in their face... 3-day special operation and all.

There was already no gas flowing through either pipeline at the time and with European gas reserves having been kept at an artificially low level, this could've put a lot of pressure on Germany to certify and permit gas flows through the remaining undamaged NS2 pipeline if it hadn't been a mild winter.

This could've been a massive strategic political win for Russia.

> Yep, if Russia wants to expand its conflict against Europe, Narva in Estonia is most likely place for it. Over 90% of its population is ethnic Russian, and it's located right next to the Russian border. It's the perfect place to send some armed "separatists" to see how NATO responds.

Fortunately while close, the border runs along a fairly wide river with just a single bridge across, so logistically somewhat complicated to supply with heavy equipment from the Russian side. At least covertly.

But definitely a scenario that needs to be considered.

> logistically somewhat complicated to supply with heavy equipment from the Russian side

Little green men. Crimea is an island.

Estonia has recently announced that they will implement a shoot-to-kill policy without warnings at the border.

Absolutely necessary. Unfortunate. Tragic. Avoidable. But given Moscow’s playbook, necessary.

An island with a Russian naval base.

Much good it did them.

There are 5 road bridges and 1 railway bridge in the vicinity of Narva.

Even in the US, lie detector results are generally inadmissible in court.

> To restore decorum and professionalism

Given the complete absence of either in the current administration, this is clearly not the real reason. So “woke” is the only explanation left.

Are you implying military personnel aren't a legitimate target in a war?

I'd understand if you were arguing against using excessive force, eg using thermobaric weapons in residential neighborhoods against an individual target, but there hardly exists a more targeted method than the pager attack / arson of specific houses.

Russia isn’t using these recruits for anything more than meatwave attacks, so their life expectancy isn’t long enough to be useful for sabotage. By the time they’ve been transported to the front, they will be dead whether they go willingly or not.