Depends on your project. Do you have a large content team managing a large amount of content? That's Drupal's strength and I don't think there's anything better for it.
Other than that, familiarity is really the best selling point.
They haven't abandoned the core presentation system entirely. I mean, maybe Dries has, but he's not quite the tyrant that Matt is (was?). I agree that it's confusing, and I don't like Canvas, but I also don't use it.
I came into Drupal right as 8 was becoming the standard, and facilitated a number of Drupal 7 migrations, so I don't have the experience of getting burned by churn, but I will say that coming from WordPress, Drupal was a huge breath of fresh air. Better code, better community, better architecture etc.
The Drupal core team is moving really fast to improve its reputation, and I think a lot of the changes are good. The AI integration is pretty solid, and the Symfony framework is solid and easy to build on. I think the move to Canvas is misguided and from inside the community I can tell you that not everyone is on board, but it is nice that both paths are possible.
As many here have said: If you have large teams that manage large amounts of content, Drupal is really the only option. If you're making one-off sites or "brochure sites," then vibe-coding them is just as good as anything, but I don't think that's ever been Drupal's core concern.
Agreed. Brochure sites... use whatever. But once you begin to pile on the requirements: automatic image manipulation (resizing, scaling, focal point), complex user roles and permissions, rules-based content editing workflows, multiple search indexes, semantic search, complex media management, internal AI site agent, API and MCP servers, GIS and mapping features, file management (public, private, and cloud hosted), custom entities and fields that seamlessly work with the rest of the system, etc., you end up either using Drupal or bolting on your Drupal-like features to another CMS. I like to think of Drupal as the worst CMS, except for all the others.
I'm building an addition to my house and I use AI to visualize parts of it, which helps me plan efficiently, and I use it to answer questions about skills that I only have a little bit of experience in. I'm saving a ton of money and developing skills, so I count that as benefiting "the average Joe." I admit that I'm a programmer, but I'm using this as an example because it's helping me in an area in which I have little expertise, which applies to everyone.
People used to do this with books. Multiple generations of people before me built their own houses, when they had a question they'd just ask another human who had actual experience.
I'm not denying that AI makes searching for some of this easier, or might help you figure out what the right questions to ask are, but I often feel like it's a mostly crappy solution to the fact that we scaled data to infinity and refused to pay for any level of curation.
Exactly. Using them to actually “generate content” is a sure fire way to turn your brain into garbage, along with whatever you “produce” - but they do seem to have fulfilled Google’s dream of making the Star Trek computer reality.
Most all words have more than one sound. There are big sounds and small sounds though. The big parts - "word sounds" — that we don't want, the word "sounds" has just one. It needs no break. You might say that the word "school" has two but that word has just one as well.
There are larger minds than ours, and they've been well-attested for millennia as celestial entities, i.e. spirits. Approaching it purely within the realm of the kinds of minds that we can observe empirically is self-limiting.
Well attested to is different from convincingly attested to. You may have noticed that people will say just about anything for lots of reasons other than averring a literal truth, and this was particularly true for those many millennia during which human beings didn't even know why the sky was blue and almost literally could not have conceived of the terms in which we can presently formulate an explanation.
The "people in times before the enlightenment just attributed everything to spirits because they didn't understand things" argument is tired and boring. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean that it's not true, modern man.
That isn't my assertion. I actually think people in the past probably did not seriously subscribe to so-called supernatural explanations most of the time in their daily lives. Why I am saying is that its quite reasonable to take a bunch of incoherent, often contradictory and vague, accounts of spiritual experiences as not having much epistemological weight.
Then we disagree about the basic assumption. I do think that people throughout history have attributed many different things to the influence of spiritual entities. I’m just saying that It just was not a catch-all for unexplained circumstances. They may seem contradictory and vague to someone who denies the existence of spirits, but if you have the proper understanding of spirits as vast cosmic entities with minds far outside ours, that aren’t bound to the same physical and temporal rules as us, then people’s experiences make a lot of sense.
Okay, you have proposed a theory about a phenomenon that has some causal influence on the world -- ie, that there are spirits which can communicate with people and presumably alter their behavior in some way.
How do you propose to experimentally verify and measure such spirits? How can we distinguish between a world in which they exist as you imagine them and a world in which they don't? How can we distinguish between a world in which they exist as you imagine them and a world in which a completely _different set of spirits following different rules, also exists. What about Djinn? Santa Claus? Demons? Fairies?
We can experimentally verify spirits by communicating with them. Many such cases.
Now, do you mean measure them using our physical devices that we currently have? No, we can't do that. They are "minds beyond ours" as OP suggests, just not in the way that OP assumes.
Djinn: Demons. Santa Claus: Saint (i.e. soul of a righteous human). Demons: Demons. Fairies (real, not fairy-tale): Demons. Most spirits that you're going to run across as presenting themselves involuntarily to people are demons because demons are the ones who cause mischief. Angels don't draw attention to themselves.
I don't know, it seems reasonable to conclude that the experiments you describe point strongly to an endogenous rather than exogenous source of these experiences, especially since people who have these kinds of experiences do not all agree on what they are or mean and the experiences are significantly influenced by cultural norms.
An electron is a bit like a demon in the sense that you can't see one directly and we only have indirect evidence that they exist. But anyone from any culture can do an oil drop experiment and get values which aren't culture bound, at least in the long run. People have been having mystical experiences forever and the world religions still have no agreement about what they mean.
I'm conflicted about this. I want to dislike it, but frankly I don't appreciate the actual musicianship in music the majority of the time. If I'm listening to something that has broad and long-lasting culture impact like Bach, or Britney Spears, it really matters more about how it's been received than the actual quality of the music.
Or, if I'm listening to music just for the vibe, I really don't care how it's created, as long as it doesn't offend me auditorially. I'm really not listening actively. So I suppose that's a bit of an indictment of myself, but I don't think it's a serious character flaw in myself. I should probably just try to pay more attention to the people around me at all times.
I have a lot of fun putting my own poetry in here and mashing it up with the styles that I enjoy listening to, or that I think would work well with the poem. Again, I don't want to like it, but I do.
reply