I am sure that they will not lead to “Christian theocratic values in public policy” in France. That value system is fringe in France, one of the most irreligious and historically anti-clerical cultures in the world.
Among people who identify as Christian in France, the ones who could be described as radical or fundamentalist are a very small minority.
My observation is that there is a big resurgence in supremacist politics and the main identity involved is white Christian male. Maybe it’s not yet big in France but that’s what I see gaining momentum in many parts of Europe and North America.
You’re talking about a completely different thing, right-wing populist neo-nationalism based on an idea of European ethnicity and culture (which, of course, includes culturally identifying as “Christian”). This isn’t the same thing as being based on religious doctrine.
Have you ever had the chance to look at the public-facing support email inbox for a SaaS company? You get absolutely bombarded with these low quality “bug reports” from people trying to farm bounties. They do not care whether the bug is real or impactful, it’s a game of volume for them.
I don't think India had a democracy before the Brits, either.
Not that it gives anyone else the right to come in and declare themselves Raj. But Vicky wasn't the first to come to India and declare themselves in charge.
HN isn’t really for memes and quippy references. That’s the main reason you got downvoted, regardless of whether your substantive political point is a good one or not. The original comment matches the vibe of Reddit or Twitter a lot better than HN.
It's heavily implied through social observation here on the site. Just like how "memes and quippy references" are frowned upon, which you immediately pointed out in a separate comment. Since you're not new, you just outed yourself as someone who has just enough social awareness to understand a small subset of what's implicitly accepted here, but you haven't fully developed the mental capacity for implications more than one layer deep.
If someone buys a TV (y'know, a device that's supposed to reproduce sound and moving pictures), it should at least be decent at both. But if people want a high-end 5.1/7.1/whatever.1 sound then by all means they should be able to upgrade.
My mum? She doesn't want or need that, nor does she realistically have the space to have a high-end home-cinema entertainment setup (much less a dedicated room for it).
It's just a TV in her living room surrounded by cat toys and some furniture.
So, if she buys a nearly €1000 TV (she called it a "stupid star trek TV") it should at least be decent—although at that price tag you'd reasonably expect more than just decent—at everything it's meant to do of the box. She shouldn't need to constantly adjust sound volume or settings, or spend another thousand on equipment and refurbishment to access to decent sound.
In contrast, they say the old TV that's now at nan's house has much better sound (even if the screen is smaller) and are thinking of swapping the TVs since nan moved back in with my mum.
Good speakers isn't really compatible with flatness of modern tv's. You can certainly make one with good speakers, but it would look weird mounted on the wall. Buying external speakers seems like a decent tradeoff for that.
Sure, it would be nice if TVs could have good sound out of the box if that meant no other tradeoffs. But if it means making the TV thicker (and, as other comments have pointed out, it probably would) then I'd be against it, since I never use the built-in TV speaker and frankly don't think anyone should.
Honestly I think high-end TVs should just not include speakers at all, similar to how high-end speakers don't contain built-in amplifiers. Then you could spend the money saved on whatever speakers you want.
> She shouldn't need to constantly adjust sound volume or settings, or spend another thousand on equipment and refurbishment to access to decent sound.
Everyone cares about hearing the words. Those who care about hearing nuanced and buy extra sound equipment are a distinct and much much much smaller set of viewers. Yet only tha smaller set seems to be able to get decent results.
A sound bar, even though fairly bad, is still a million times better than internal speakers, and you'd need a very exotic setup to be unable to fit one.
I'm surprised given you care about audio that you can even tolerate internal speakers. I'd just not use that TV and watch wherever you have better audio.
In Europe (and anywhere else north of the Tropic of Cancer), the sun is always approximately due south at noon. That’s the reason for the connection, and “midi” indeed means both south (in some contexts) and noon in French.
Sure, but it never caught on. Not sure the point of your “/s” sign, since what you’re claiming is in fact true, and if it’s a joke it’s not a particularly funny one.
If you visited Japan as a tourist, I believe you learned enough to say hello, ask someone where your hotel is, and so on. I don’t for a second believe you learned enough to understand arbitrary train network change announcements. Unless you spend years studying the language before visiting any country as a tourist, which would be absurd.
No, I didn't learn vast amounts of Japanese, but I did learn phrases and the kanji for various destinations. It sped things up. I did not stand around and speak English to people slowly and expect them all to understand.
Among people who identify as Christian in France, the ones who could be described as radical or fundamentalist are a very small minority.
reply