Here, let us help @mjs_DC with this thread of Democrats and their propaganda wing who endorsed violence what they dishonestly called "peaceful

@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 2)
https://t.co/cpayZ2vRr2
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 3)
https://t.co/S0E0JK9Kea
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 4)
https://t.co/zJ0J5Wy2as
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 5)
https://t.co/tUbAy2uNwv
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 6)
https://t.co/xbR7IzCVDw
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 7)
https://t.co/Pj7p9tJYqU
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 8)
https://t.co/Od38P2PCSi
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 9)
https://t.co/sR3jJdsxGc
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 10)
https://t.co/U2mkFRd168
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC 11)
Thank you @tomselliott. Great job documenting the stories and information the fake news media have failed to report on.
@CarmineSabia @mjs_DC @tomselliott @threadreaderapp Please unroll.

More from News

Durham County Council has upheld my complaint that Councillor David Boyes breached its Code of Conduct for communications in respect of Travellers. This would appear to be the first time in England that a councillor has been so held to account for such communications. [1/16]


The grounds for the complaint are already set out by me: https://t.co/0MDqO6dyja. In summary: on 7 May 2020, Cllr Boyes posted on a Facebook site he shared with another councillor a video of scorch damage from barbeque trays and littering on and around a picnic table.
[2/16]


The table was in a picnic area in a nature reserve in the Easington constituency which Cllr Boyes represents. The video was accompanied by a comment from Cllr Boyes linking the ‘state’ of the tables with Travellers. That post attracted a number of comments which he liked.
[3/16]

Those liked comments included:

▪️ ‘scum should be f**k*ng shot oxygen thieves’ [edited]

▪️ ‘And they wonder why many people do not welcome them’.

[4/16]

Cllr Boyes accepted at the hearing that he did not have proof that Travellers caused the damage and that it was wrong for him to so implicate Travellers.
[5/16]

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.