Easy: Zero. What you describe as "desperate people" are people who would already die without "yolo[ing] on themselves", so, by definition, the worst outcome is that they still die.
> Oh, by the way, any indication that nobody roleplayed the Israeli side?
The description implies that nobody did:
> Seaside Prison is a Palestinian-Finnish-Norwegian larp that deals with the siege of Gaza trough an alternative reality setting where the situation on Åland Islands resembles that of real world Gaza. Two ordinary families live as neighbours in Marienhamn. Their family drama and wedding preparations are interrupted by bombings in which some of the family members are killed.
For the same reason Wikipedia suffers: People who are really good at writing factual content / good answers are not automatically good at moderation, often they are even some of the worst people for it. Moderation needs empathy, thinking about edge cases, dealing with emotions and so on. Making the people who have the most points on a Q&A site your moderators was always a recipe for disaster.
For a long time, the sheer usefulness of SO overshadowed all of this. People were willing to suffer for the sake of getting a result. But over time the quality couldn't keep up with the pure agony of having to deal with petty dictators. And finally, people just stopped going there, which means the chance that the best answer will be on SO is getting smaller, which means even less people bother with it and so on.
Solr. The correct answer is Solr. All the search features of Elasticsearch (both are built on Lucene, which provides the actual search implementation) without the problems that Elastic (the company) or Elasticsearch (the product) brings with it. 99% of companies using Elasticsearch would be far better of with Solr.
Solr will work perfectly if you want to do a standard search (db, shop) or need a customized approach, like custom transformers, ranking, etc. However, if you aim for "something that just works good enough" and has much better scaling capability and tooling, you can't beat ES/OpenSearch here (Solr scaling is much more manual process than ES/OS). And if you want to stay away from ElasticSearch drama, stick to OpenSearch - they are shipping excellent stuff these days.
Solr is seen (probably unfairly) as passé by many people.
I used Solr back in 2008-2009 or so and it did a great job, but people didn't like that it used XML rather than JSON. Then we had a requirement for something like Elasticsearch's percolate query functionality, which Solr didn't support. So we switched, and subsequent projects I've joined have all used ES.
So now in addition to the "does it do the job?" question, teams might also ask "can we hire and retain people to work with this technology rather than the more popular alternative?".
While I agree with your comment I'd like to point out that the reason the youth is leaving is not this policy, but that there are no jobs for them. At least none that you really want to live on. That's a problem "digital nomads" are expected to not have: They have their job somewhere else, so who cares if the local job market is garbage? Though I don't think this will work out in the long term.
Sounds like a reasonable judgement - even if the parties didn't come to a compromise themselves - would have been to just swap lots. Lots 115 should be empty, cause the building that should be there is on 114. So, swap the deeds and be done with it.
(Unless lot 115 is completely different to 114, but doesn't sound that way)
That sort of precedent seems like it will just lead to abuse. Buy a less desirable plot of land, 'accidentally' build on a nicer plot near by, force the owner of the nicer plot to hand over their land to you (Since they're just a bit different and not "completely different").
I'm pretty sure judges can reasonably find the difference between willfulness and accident (as the article states, multiple people who had no reason to help the builder missed the error) and decide accordingly.
But why should you be rewarded for your fuckup by taking my land from me? Why should I be punished for doing nothing wrong by being forced to take a possibly lesser plot of land.
That is reasonable ONLY if the party who owns the lot is willing to trade (possibly with some extra compensation for their trouble). However I see not reason to expect someone to trade their land just because someone else wants to.
Thanks for spelling this out. I always thought the same, even as a child when I first saw the film: Ariel has a deep feeling of not belonging where she is combined with a yearning for human culture. It's obvious from the movie that her falling in with the prince is just the last step in a long line of "I should be up there, not down here" and not just some spur of the moment decision.
I'll concede that its less "give up your voice and everything about yourself for a boy" and more "give up your voice and everything about yourself for this way of life that you are clearly irrationally obsessed over and don't understand at all". But its also made clear via the voice subplot that her mad dash to separate herself from who she was to begin with is itself a source of conflict. Certainly, don't ignore the voice in your head that says "this isn't the place for you", but also accept that the change needs to happen slower than you want, for a variety of good reasons.
I suppose there's an interpretation of Disney's The Little Mermaid where its an allegory for LGBTQ (especially trans) kids. But even then, it mixes its metaphors by adding in the romantic subplot. Luca does a much MUCH better job of balancing the two worlds, because the happy ending is "gets to be human" and not "gets to be human, so they can get married to the person they met a 4 days ago". The Little Mermaid really muddies the water (pardon the pun) by adhering to that aspect of the old story.
And while I have considerable misgivings about introducing the happily-ever-after romantic ending to 5 year olds, Disney does manage to get it more correct: Beauty and the Beast shows the (potentially problematic) relationship between Belle and the Beast developing over time, as they get to know each other. Tangled has the love story as ancillary to the main story of getting out from under the thumb of an abusive parental figure. Even Sleeping Beauty expends a lot of screentime to show how the love story specifically contradicts the arranged marriage to be (although its all for naught, since they were arranged to be married to each other anyway). Its just that The Little Mermaid piles up a lot of unsubtle allegory and doesn't even attempt to mitigate it.
