u/Zuka101

Predlažem da se dio Bošnjaka, recimo 25%, pri svakom službenom izjašnjavanju počne izjašnjavati kao Hrvati. Ne kao šala, nego kao legitimno korištenje prava svakog čovjeka da sam odredi svoju nacionalnu pripadnost.

Time bi broj Hrvata u BiH znatno porastao, dok bi se ti ljudi i dalje mogli politički opredjeljivati i glasati za koga žele. Svaka izmjena Izbornog zakona koja pretpostavlja da nacionalna oznaka automatski određuje političku volju time bi izgubila smisao. Nijedna stranka ne može biti vlasnik hrvatskog identiteta.

Za to ne treba DNK test, hrvatsko porijeklo, prelazak na katoličanstvo niti potvrda HDZ-a. Tamo gdje se nacionalnost službeno traži, jednostavno se izjasniš kao Hrvat.

Također, zašto se više ljudi iz Federacije ne bi selilo u Republiku Srpsku? Nekretnine i zemljište su u mnogim mjestima jeftiniji, prostor je manje izgrađen, a mogućnosti za kupovinu zemlje i gradnju kuće često su bolje. To je ista država i svaki njen građanin ima pravo živjeti, kupovati imovinu i graditi gdje želi.

Zašto ovo ne bismo ozbiljno razmotrili? Koja konkretna pravna prepreka postoji?

Hi everyone! I'm a software engineer from Bosnia and Herzegovina looking primarily for part-time remote work, although I'd definitely consider a full-time role for the right opportunity.

Experience

- QA Engineering (manual and automation)

- Python backend development

- DevOps and CI/CD

- Linux systems administration

- API testing and integration testing

- Test strategy, regression testing, and release validation

Tech Stack

- Languages: Python, TypeScript, JavaScript, SQL, Bash

- Backend: FastAPI, Litestar, Pydantic, SQLAlchemy

- Frontend: SvelteKit, Svelte

- Databases: PostgreSQL, SQLite

- DevOps: Docker, GitHub Actions, Azure DevOps

- Testing: Pytest, Playwright, Vitest, REST API testing

- Infrastructure: Linux (Debian, openSUSE), Proxmox, Git

- Other: OpenAPI, AsyncIO, REST APIs, CLI application development

I have experience working across the full software development lifecycle, from backend development and automation to CI/CD, infrastructure, and software quality. I'm comfortable contributing wherever needed and enjoy building reliable tools, backend services, and automation solutions.

If you're looking for someone with this background, or know of an opportunity that might be a good fit, feel free to send me a message.

Atlantis spends half its runtime accidentally creating a compelling pragmatic antagonist, then reveals it was just a standard Disney villain all along.

I'm currently rewatching Atlantis: The Lost Empire with my kids. It was one of my favorite movies growing up, and they're finally old enough to enjoy it too, even if some scenes are a bit intense. I hadn't watched it in years, and seeing it again as an adult left me with a strange feeling.

Not because the movie is bad.

Because it feels like there is a better movie hiding inside it.

Atlantis is already one of Disney's more mature animated films. Within the first part of the movie, people are blown up, crushed, drowned, and lost when the expedition is attacked. The submarine is destroyed. Crew members die. The survivors are stranded thousands of miles from home.

The stakes are real.

As a kid, I never questioned the conflict. Milo was the hero. Rourke was the villain.

Rewatching it now, I think Rourke would have been a much better villain if the movie had made him less evil.

The film spends a surprising amount of time giving him the makings of a compelling antagonist: a commander responsible for the survivors of a catastrophic expedition, a man who watched people die under his command, and someone trying to justify sacrifices that have already been made.

A desperate commander trying to make sense of those losses is a far more interesting antagonist than a treasure hunter who just wants to get rich.

And the movie gives him plenty to work with.

The expedition suffers massive casualties getting to Atlantis.

The crew have risked everything.

Many of them likely signed up because they needed the money.

Then they finally find Atlantis and... the Atlanteans aren't exactly welcoming.

The king's distrust is understandable, but from the expedition's perspective they have crossed the world, lost friends, lost their ship, and are effectively being told to leave.

Honestly, I can understand why that would create resentment.

At the same time, Milo's position becomes more complicated than I remembered.

The expedition took him seriously when nobody else would. They funded the journey based on his research. They got him there. They risked their lives pursuing his dream.

Then Milo discovers Atlantis, meets Kida, and quickly shifts his loyalty to the people he has known for a few days over the people who brought him there.

Again, I understand why he does it.

But the movie never really forces him to grapple with what he owes the expedition.

And that's what I find most interesting.

Milo sees Atlantis as a living culture that deserves protection.

Rourke could have seen a mission that had already cost too much to abandon.

The crew want something to show for the sacrifices they've made.

The Atlanteans want to be left alone.

None of those positions are inherently unreasonable.

To me, that's where the real story is.

The moment Rourke becomes a conventional Disney villain, that entire conflict disappears. Milo no longer has to choose between competing loyalties. The crew no longer have understandable grievances. The king's distrust no longer matters. Everyone's motivations become simpler because the audience is given an obvious bad guy.

What's frustrating is that the movie already had all the ingredients for something richer.

Not a story where Rourke was right.

A story where everyone had a point.

A story where everyone was asking something reasonable of everyone else.

A story where the audience had to decide for themselves who they agreed with.

Instead, the film resolves its most interesting conflict by replacing it with a much simpler one.

I'm currently rewatching Atlantis: The Lost Empire with my kids. It was one of my favorite movies growing up, and they're finally old enough to enjoy it too, even if some scenes are a bit intense. I hadn't watched it in years, and seeing it again as an adult left me with a strange feeling.

Not because the movie is bad.

Because it feels like there is a better movie hiding inside it.

Atlantis is already one of Disney's more mature animated films. Within the first part of the movie, people are blown up, crushed, drowned, and lost when the expedition is attacked. The submarine is destroyed. Crew members die. The survivors are stranded thousands of miles from home.

The stakes are real.

As a kid, I never questioned the conflict. Milo was the hero. Rourke was the villain.

Rewatching it now, I think Rourke would have been a much better villain if the movie had made him less evil.

The film spends a surprising amount of time giving him the makings of a compelling antagonist: a commander responsible for the survivors of a catastrophic expedition, a man who watched people die under his command, and someone trying to justify sacrifices that have already been made.

A desperate commander trying to make sense of those losses is a far more interesting antagonist than a treasure hunter who just wants to get rich.

And the movie gives him plenty to work with.

The expedition suffers massive casualties getting to Atlantis.

The crew have risked everything.

Many of them likely signed up because they needed the money.

Then they finally find Atlantis and... the Atlanteans aren't exactly welcoming.

The king's distrust is understandable, but from the expedition's perspective they have crossed the world, lost friends, lost their ship, and are effectively being told to leave.

Honestly, I can understand why that would create resentment.

At the same time, Milo's position becomes more complicated than I remembered.

The expedition took him seriously when nobody else would. They funded the journey based on his research. They got him there. They risked their lives pursuing his dream.

Then Milo discovers Atlantis, meets Kida, and quickly shifts his loyalty to the people he has known for a few days over the people who brought him there.

Again, I understand why he does it.

But the movie never really forces him to grapple with what he owes the expedition.

And that's what I find most interesting.

Milo sees Atlantis as a living culture that deserves protection.

Rourke could have seen a mission that had already cost too much to abandon.

The crew want something to show for the sacrifices they've made.

The Atlanteans want to be left alone.

None of those positions are inherently unreasonable.

To me, that's where the real story is.

The moment Rourke becomes a conventional Disney villain, that entire conflict disappears. Milo no longer has to choose between competing loyalties. The crew no longer have understandable grievances. The king's distrust no longer matters. Everyone's motivations become simpler because the audience is given an obvious bad guy.

What's frustrating is that the movie already had all the ingredients for something richer.

Not a story where Rourke was right.

A story where everyone had a point.

A story where everyone was asking something reasonable of everyone else.

A story where the audience had to decide for themselves who they agreed with.

Instead, the film resolves its most interesting conflict by replacing it with a much simpler one.