In Europe, the most popular high school and university debate format is British Parliamentary in which spreading is not popular because you only have 15 minutes to prepare and weakly justified arguments don't require responses.
British culture certainly has plenty of ivory tower elitism, yet has passed by this. I don't think it's a special revolutionary pedagogy, just a different interpretation of how to deal with subjectivity in debate.
I'm in the target audience and still don't fully understand, although I do think the market needs more tools like this.
Generally speaking, the value prop for tools in this space tends to be that they map similar data concepts from lots of providers into one API so that it's faster to build interoperability. For example, if you're shipping a project management tools integration, every tool has the equivalent of a ticket and a project and a label regardless of what they call it.
What I /think/ this tool does is go one layer further and provide cloud-based orchestration for chained integration calls with appropriate failover and observability hooks built in automatically. Which is a sensible tool I think the market is hurting for.
Brendan Eich also created JavaScript. So you're going to have to pretty much stop using the Internet entirely if you're going to act like his work has anything to do with his political opinions. Personally, I separate a person's work from their political opinions and I think you should too.
Not really. Life doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing dichotomy like this. It is a perfectly fine decision to boycott a product if it is viable to be boycotted, and keep using a product if it's not: using the web without JavaScript is almost impossible, so I'll use it; using the web without Brave is easy, so I won't use it.
This is not about separating a person's work from their political views, it's about not giving more power to people you don't want to have more power. If he is going to use money to campaign against LGBT people, then I'll do my best not to give him money, and I think you should too.
My browser of choice is Firefox, not Chrome. As I said, because Google does shady stuff too, I avoid giving them money when possible.
It's not that hard to prioritize companies that are aligned with your values. You don't need to start living in a cave or self-flagellate. Just look around to see if there is a suitable alternative.
I was talking about browsers, but I can see why the confusion happened, since Brave also has a search engine and this post is about a search engine.
Then yes, I use Google for my search engine. They do shady stuff, but they never campaigned against same-sex marriage, and none of the alternatives have given me good enough results and an acceptable political alignment for me to switch. Brave certainly doesn't seem much better, with unacceptable political stances and worse search results. DDG is getting there, but the search results are still not good enough to replace Google for me.
reply