zilean
In any case there is nothing state can do to please you: censoring specific types from accessing media is bad (and rest assured you would never know if they are ultra-right, libertarians or whoever they are from western media), allowing them is endorsing.
Cant agree. Also this is a slippery slope that could apply to western countries as well and we dont want to go there.
> The "crazy" talk about Ukraine that started even prior to 2004 by "ultra-right" leaders was just 1st phase of prep.
Again, Ukraine problematic is objective. Alaska and NK is not. Not from todays Russia perspective, not from population perspective, not even from historical perspective. You didnt need ultra-right to talk about Ukraine and many legitimate politicians spoke about that for a long time. If anything moving towards Iran and eating up Caucasus nations is making much more sense than messing with NK, Baltics, Sweden or whoever else is trying to justify their actions using Russia as a threat.
I dont get much about NK from anyone but some ultra-right aligned personalities (but i am also getting stuff about Alaska from them, so there is that).
Ukraine is special not because Kiev has to be in Russia, but because a lot of the current Ukrainian land was for, again, some hundreds years Russian and have almost no sovereign history. That makes it easy to play by all sorts of powers and Government is really not the main one there. Just look at Alaska it never gets same attention. Or North Kazakhstan. Same would be with Ukraine in coming 50-100 years if they would be able to hold the country together.
> It would be nice for Russia to have a swath from Crimea to Dontesk up through Latvia, just look at a map.
Why take this land? It does nothing strategically, has population that you need to subsidise, etc. Crimea allows Black Sea control. Kaliningrad effectively makes Baltic inner sea for Russia and if there ever would be any baltic action you would see that, not many (if any) ships would be able to enter.
Ironically Western counties are very good at it.
Russia has nothing to gain in baltic that it doesnt have with Kaliningrad. Same goes for Ukraine w/o Crimea.
But it would work the same way with monotonically increasing version. no?
> When you fix a bug you increment the patch version
I am just trying to understand how semver applies to REST in your case. Never seen anything but single number versioning for endpoints.
This i care about.
> fix a bug or add a new feature
Not sure why i should care about these tho.
> essentially breaking existing integration
Not sure why you need 3 numbers to express that. Am i right in that your consumers dont get bugfixes by default because api patch version is changing? How is this working irl?
> suggestion of using a date is useless
Dates are just easier to scan by humans that just monotonically increasing numbers.
It does. Semver implies semantics arbitrary versioning is not.
Everything is working just like you would set it up with React, except that with Ember declaring data dependencies on route is existing convention. And React gives you maybe a little bit more control around that.
> do it concurrently
Does ember renders concurrently?
> There is a huge gulf between "synchronously render a component in Node" and "asynchronously boot an app, marshall async data, render an async UI, and do it concurrently."
I dont think it is fair to say it that way. React implementation doing all this (except async/streaming rendering) is man-week at worst in existing medium sized project, and man-day for a new project with no pre-existing code.
Not to follow along with propaganda, but how much of an independent history Ukraine have in these new borders in last 1000 years? Specifically around Crimea and so called People's Republics.