Firstly, that’s not evidence. You need to provide an article or something along those lines to provide evidence. That being said, I also don’t doubt what you say. However you are claiming they did it with the specific intent of hurting that 10 year old and people like her. What evidence do you have of that? All you have shown is that in the act of protecting the fetus, the would-be mother and doctor got hurt. That’s not the same thing.

I’m unsure why people are expected to correctly interpret what they meant, yet I am required to spell out what I said. That seems like a double standard. Personally I felt what I wrote was clear enough as it was. I wanted to know what they meant by what they said, so I asked them what they meant.

Definitely possible but I’m a fan of Hanlon’s Razor unless evidence shows otherwise.

I was waiting for someone to actually state their position. It is a bit weird how no one would actually say what their opinion was and instead relied on people making assumptions about their position. It’s rather terrible for communication imo.

You are right, women are being hurt by those laws, those are not anti womens healthcare laws though. As I said those laws are about the fetus. Women being hurt and killed is an unintended externality. People talk like there is a war on women here comparable to what the Taliban is doing when the US is one of the best places in the world to be a woman. That’s not to say the US isn’t backtracking but perspective is important.

The intent of those laws isn’t to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.

The intent of those laws isn’t to hurt women or reduce their protections. Those laws are intended to protect what the law makers view as children from being murdered by the women. They are just implemented in a really poor way resulting in those horrible scenarios.

Could you be specific about which laws? I’m not saying you’re wrong I just want to know specifically what you are saying the government is doing that removes protections from women

Unfortunately I can’t read people’s minds to figure out what their argument is.

What do you mean?

I’d like to know their argument before making a decision on this one. For all we know she’s asking for white people to be sterilized.

Don’t gamble with your future. You should have never stopped paying. Your loan is probably in a worse position now than you were 4 years ago due to interest. The longer you wait the worse your situation will be.

In google’s case, you might be right. However in general what are you expecting the website to say? An explanation of why react was chosen over other languages? Otherwise the reason you have to enable JavaScript on a react website is because the site doesn’t work without it. I see that like complaining that your gas light on your car doesn’t provide an explanation as to why gas is required for it to run.

If you are curious why a lot of sites use languages like react instead of plain html, there are a few reasons. Prior to react like languages, web servers would generate the page, send it to you, and then anytime you interacted with the site it would send you a whole new page to display. I.e. if you opened a popup for uploading a file, it would send you a whole new page to display which is why older sites flicker on basically any interaction. Newer sites that use things like React are downloaded once. It basically downloads the code to make the website and then runs entirely on your machine. The benefit to this is that if you sort a list, open a drop-down, open a popup to download a file, etc. it all happens on your computer instead of some remote server. No need to wait for a server to respond or download a new page, it can update that specific part of the page instead. Some sites are even fully functional offline because of this which is really cool in my opinion.

This makes a far better user experience because everything is instant and doesn’t trigger page reloads on every interaction with the site.

It’s good for developers because it allows code reusability and vastly increases what you can do. Many of the critical features I have on my site are not possible without JavaScript/React. I actually first developed the site using the old style and changed it over to React because of those limitations.

Google could have updated their site to one of these languages to open up new possibilities in what they can do on their site. That or they might be making it more consistent with their other products for maintainability reasons. I find it unlikely that the people who have JavaScript turned off are a large enough portion of the population for them to care about their data but I could be wrong.

A lot of websites are react which doesn’t function without JavaScript. It’s a more powerful tool for web dev and can be a better experience for the user if used right.