Where I live it goes crazy with road works when it's coming to the end of the year with the council trying to spend the unused budget rather than lose it.
My sister is far far richer and more successful than I am. She once told me that every night the last thing she'd do was to make a mental list of things to do tomorrow. That was it. Nothing written down.
I feel there's more to the story. One thing is being organized, another is being able to execute consistently, and being organized is not a precursor to that. I am extremely smart, and productive, sometimes. Most of the times my mind jumps to random areas of interest, life happens, fight with wife/GF, parent illness, alcohol binges and I'm back to a baseline with almost no output. As if I'm sabotaging myself. Consistency is key, how you achieve it is second.
I understand (and endorse) simplicity of design, but that page doesn't even have a link back to the home page. They've gone too far past accessibility into creating a less-accessible page...
Note well: all accessibility decisions are trade-offs. Do you need a link to the home page if you have a perfectly-good address bar? Some people do; for others, it's a nuisance. If someone with particular accessibility needs has designed a website, and diverged from usual practices, I tend to assume they had a reason for it. (That isn't to say I'll naïvely copy it. Usually I'll ask, but that's no longer possible in this case.) Imo, they should have a link (either <a> or <link>) with rel="up", so the browser's Up button works.
I think you miss the point. This page was linked to you from somewhere. “Home” in that context is back where you came from, I.e. the back button. Finding this page could have come from anywhere and sites don’t have to have pages keep you in their ___domain. That’s not how the web used to work. Nowadays everyone has their own “site” and it’s a much different eco system from decades ago.
The first website ever, at CERN [1], is not very consistent about this. Some pages [2] do link "home", but don't use this term: in this particular case, a link to "the WWW project" is given in the first sentence. Some [3] do not.
> “Home” in that context is back where you came from, I.e. the back button.
...No, that would be "back", not "home". Those aren't interchangeable terms unless you are coming from a (or your browser's) home page.
Anyway, this page is an FAQ about the site itself. It is not a standalone document. Without the context of the rest of the site, it has no meaning or value. There is no better use case for intra-site links than a page written entirely about content on other parts of the site.
Meh, it's common to want to navigate to the root of a ___domain to find more information if you've been linked to a subpage that may lack some useful context. You can of course edit the URL by hand, but that's less convenient. Intra-site navigation links have a purpose.
(Perhaps on another timeline browsers would have had an "up" button in addition to "back" and "forward" like filesystem browsers do, but that did not happen. Even <link rel> doesn't have an "up" option, though it does have "prev" and "next" – not that anyone uses <link> for anything but rel="stylesheet" and maybe rel="alternate". EDIT – rel="up" used to exist but was dropped from HTML5 with no reason given. I presume it's nevertheless supported by browsers and eg. screenreaders.)
Kill Sticky bookmarklet[1]. Also works on mobile. Get in the habit of clicking it, you'll start using it a lot to recover that extra inch of vertical space that web devs love to take away from you for some bizarre reason.
I just use a bookmarklet that nukes any position:fixed elements on the page. Works on toolbars, cookie banners, full page interstitials — really shockingly useful on the hostile web.
Western meddling in the ME is the cause of much/most of the instability there,
not least Britain's enabling of the settler colonisation of Palestine by European Jews.
Today America is supplying the munitions for Israel to indiscriminately bomb the people earlier displaced by that colonisation. Yes, thanks a bunch America.
I don't buy that. Without western intervention, after eliminating Israel, the arabs would just continue fighting amongst themselves with more Iran and Saudi funded proxy wars.
I'm not sure why/when "anti colonialism" became a free pass to kidnap, rape, and slaughter innocent civilians, but if that's what it means now, I'd prefer it to even be a British colony than whatever the "anti colonialists" want.
What's your solution then? Almost 75% of Jews live in Israel, formerly a British Territory, formerly Ottoman Empire, formerly Mamluks, Mongols, battlefield for Christians and Muslims in the crusades, Arab Muslim rule, Byzantine Christian rule, the Roman Republic, etc.
During much of this unstable history Jews occupied this land and for some of it were killed or enslaved en masse.
There never was a coherent Palestinian state, it was completely understandable for Jews to want their own state here after one of the more successful attempts at genocide orchestrated by Hitler and the third Reich, and many if not most Jews would gladly live in peace alongside Palestinians, while they elect Hamas, who according to their own charter will not stop until Israel is destroyed:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
To be clear, it is an absolute tragedy what innocent Palestinians are suffering as a result of the terrorists in charge are doing. Those monsters livestreamed their war crimes and hold innocent Palestinians hostage as human shields. They teach their children to hate Jews and shoot AK-47s. They divert international aid money from their poor to build tunnels.
If Hamas stops there is peace. If Israel stops there is no Israel.
You need to brush up on your facts as well as your timelines and stop parroting Zionist slogans.
Jews formed a very small proportion of the Palestine in the 19th century.
It was also never a "British" territory as such.
Britain simply had the League Of Nations mandate to prepare it for independence, elections etc. The locals were supposed to have a say in which Great Power was given the mandate and they most certainly didn't want it to be Britain, being aware of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Britain, in cahoots with France, brushed all that aside at the time to get the mandate and have the aims of the Balfour Declaration incorporated into the mandate.
Britain's goal was to have a Jewish client state in a sea of Arabs to guard the Suez Canal, the passage to its Indian Empire.
For that reason no elections were ever held as Balfour stated that Britain wasn't going to even pretend to consult the native population, let alone give them a real say, while Churchill was happy to see an inferior civilisation replaced by a superior one.
During the mandate period the proportion of Jews rose from a few percent to almost a third, against the wishes of the indigenous population.
This finally resulted in a uprising by the Arabs in the 1936 to 1939 period which was brutally suppressed by Britain and its Jewish armed militias leaving the Arabs rudderless.
After the war the Jews, being aware of the weakness of the Arabs couldn't wait for the British to depart, to the extent of waging a terrorist war against their former patrons to hurry them up.
Finally the Arabs (Palestinians) having no diaspora to lobby for them in the West were done up like a kipper at the UN.
I contest the use of the word "native" in that regard.
People have immigrated constantly throughout history from place to place. Many palestinians bare the names of their 19th-18th century origins. Last names such as "Al-Masri" (The Egyptian), "Halabi" (Of the city of Haleb in Syria) are very common, to name a few.
The tragedy here, is the continued refusal of the palestinian leadership during the 1940s to accept any partition of the land, which led to a catastrophic result on their part. Had they accepted the 1947 partition plan, Israel and Palestine could have been a free, peaceful countries.
Aah, the Palestinians never existed argument, the successor to the long discredited land without people for a people with land one and just as derisory.
The actual tragedy here is that Western Powers facilitated settler colonisation to create a Jewish State which by definition required the expulsion of the people already living there. Further, the Zionists never had any intention of sticking to the share of Palestine "gifted" to them by the the UN. They had prepared detailed plans for the ethnic cleansing of all of Palestine. The only reason they didn't take the West Bank in 1948 was that there, they were up against the British-trained Arab Legion.
Would love to see evidence for such a "plan" for ethnic cleansing.
It would be a rather absurd plan to cleanse a territory in which you are not only a minority, but also surrounded by Arab countries which were pretty adamant about refusing to accept the jewish state.
In practice, what had happened is that the jews accepted the partition plan. The reason the arabs didn't accept it, is because they simply wanted it all to themselves, not because they feared ethnic cleansing.
Using the term "settler" or "Colonializm" to characterize jewish immigration to Israel is racist and antisemite. As I mentioned, Arabs immigrated en-masse to the land of Israel throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, yet you refer to them as natives.
Did you actually read the article?
" ... The issue is subject to much controversy, with some historians asserting that it was defensive, while other historians assert that the plan aimed at the expulsion, sometimes called an ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that this was an integral part of a planned strategy."
"Other historians assert... " is hardly an evidence. More like an opinion. In truth, Israel today has more than 2 million Arab citizens.
I've read books on it.
The 2 million Arabs are the descendants of the 20% of Palestinians who were internally rather than externally displaced, ie the ethnic cleansing was only 80% effective.
The moral equivalence argument is not compelling. Israel is home to most of the world's Jewish population, and is a country which upholds Western values.
"[Israel] will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
Compared to Hamas:
"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
'The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"
Do you really wish for Islamic terrorists to succeed in their stated goal of Jewish genocide? If you were a woman or ethnic/religious minority, which country in the Middle East would be more hospitable than Israel?
I'm utterly useless but had a crystal set as a kid that worked, main thing was having a decent aerial. I got such a kick out of it even though I could only get one station.
I used to love watching James Burke's Connections on tv as a kid.
So much so that when years later I saw his book, Connections in a second hand bookshop I bought it and it sits in arm's length from where I am sitting now, unread. Just checked now and it's copyrighted 1978, this edition published 1979.
