Nobody said it isn't debt. The difference is that it is debt that makes sense: you can't realistically buy land without it, and houses tend to appreciate so the interest costs are less of a problem - they just represent the time value of money.
Most other debts people incur personally are to buy things they could save for, which go down in value. Like cars.
Why not just say to yourself, - "I don't think that's funny" - instead of generalizing on behalf of others with a word that is in essence, meaningless or rather, it means what you personally want it to mean for any particular occasion?
I'm not sure that is actually true about tailors. My understanding is that most clothing was homemade. I assume people didnt generally make their own shoes but they made their own textiles and basic garments and most people didnt have many garments.
Maybe there is a specific time period you are referring to where this was common but as I understand it, pre-industrially there were very few artisans selling products for money. Clothes were made largely by women and girls for their families.
Presumably he is referring to the industrialization period when suits were the everyday fashion. Once we moved on to baggy jeans and sweatpants, where the fit doesn't matter much, then the tailor was no longer relevant.
Yes, I'm referring to what we could call the golden age of tailoring, around 1800-1970.
You could say it was brief, relative to humanity history, indeed, as a transition period between cottage/home textile manufacturing as well as sewing, and high (and accelerating) automation managed by fewer people and lots of low-paid workers (as it is today).
And such is the trajectory for software development, a brief golden age, between the moment where computers barely existed, and the moment where automation/acceleration takes over.
It won't eliminate software development, but it won't require as many people as it does today. Some "local" artisan shops, highly skilled, and more expensive, may still exist.
But the capital currently feeling high tech salaries will inevitably seek new/other growth opportunities, as it has always done with other growth drivers.
The structure of the markup is dependent on the semantic structure of the content that is marked up. The CSS is styling that structure.
The markup shouldn't need to change over time in a way that makes the CSS layouts not work because it just reflects the semantic structure of the document, which shouldn't really need to change. If it does you have quite a different document and so of course it will need CSS changes too.
I was always much more afraid of touching ad-hoc CSS that was written alongside HTML, because it ends up having all these classes and elements that have no semantics and it becomes very unclear what anything actually means. The very worst is the "tailwind" styling where classes etc mean nothing, just styling.
Also it makes no sense to say there is no evidence of them existing, given that we are discussing precisely that: evidence of them existing.
Why would the sources that were put together to form the Bible be discounted when the whole point of putting it together was to collect the best evidence into one source?
How is it misogynistic for more than one woman to have the same name? They aren't made up characters that people decided to all call Mary in some fit of misogyny.
Given that the books were written at least 40 years after the described events, how do we know they aren't made-up characters (or pastiches of real individuals)?
Perhaps 'Mary' was a stand-in name for "Woman nobody thought to write down the name of," like "Karen" is a stand-in name today.
There is no question that Jesus existed and was crucified. Nobody seriously questions that. If we can't accept that happened then we can't accept most of history. It is one of the best-documented events of history and nobody has any reason or means to make it up.
Best-documented in history is a bit of a leap. There are the gospels (only three of which are contemporaneous) and a smattering of later writing. There probably was a religious teacher named Jesus that was crucified. But we're nowhere near as sure about that as we are that Caesar Augustus and Tiberius were the Roman emperors over that period.
