Those don't fill the same void at all, you need tons of code to do something useful with those, all of which needs to be downloaded, compiled and executed.
Show me the library using WASM/WebGL that loads as quickly as SVG or Canvas content.
110 karma · joined July 26, 2018
Show me the library using WASM/WebGL that loads as quickly as SVG or Canvas content.
WebGL doesn't have very good support, especially on mobile. That's why one would choose to use SVG.
Also, just to get it to do something requires a lot more expertise and code.
Would this project have worked out better on Canvas? Yes, most certainly, but some people have to find out the hard way.
SVG (and to a lesser extent Canvas) are trainwrecks in terms of performance. It's really a sad story that HTML5 has been evangelized so strongly, yet even ten years later it can't hold a candle to Flash in many regards.
Alternatively, prey animals would have to have the right to birth control, whereas predators would require a food program. Both would need to be provided by humans, of course, which would inevitably lead to an animal welfare state.
If I'm on one instance, and some person is on another instance, if that person gets kicked out of that instance (for a poor joke, let's say), do I lose access to all their messages?
From what I gather by your answer, the answer is "Yes". They need to get another account and I need to follow them on a new one, which may imply I need a new account as well.
Further, if I go for a "free speech" instance, I will run the risk of getting blocked (by proxy) by other instances because of what other people do on that instance.
On Twitter, this isn't such a big problem because people don't get banned that easily, but with all these moderators and "codes of conduct" being emphasized for Mastodon, I think it will be a problem.
> Do your thing, but I hope you know most people don't necessarily have these questions.
They will have the question of "why do I want this?". One answer to that is "no single corporate entity decides who gets to see what", but from what I understand the whole system is worse. All this complication to fight "outrage" and "harassment" which I don't think most people are bothered with in the first place.
"There are more than 10,000 chemicals added directly or indirectly to foods in the US and food makers use an estimated 1,000 without notifying the FDA. In a policy statement as recent as Monday, July 23, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that of the nearly 4,000 additives inventoried by the FDA, only about 263 had reproductive toxicology data, and developmental toxicology data was only available for two of the additives."
Better make sure those "tried and true" substitutes don't use any of those...
Neither fantasy is reflecting reality, but that's secondary. Mock plant-based beef is good middle-ground.
Who decides how content is relayed? Can I be on multiple instances at the same time? If don't like my instance anymore, can I seamlessly move to another one?
Frankly, I don't even want to have all these questions, it's too complicated. I'll just stick with Twitter.
I unfollow everyone who becomes overly political or comments on every outrage-du-jour. These people are inviting the bullshit. They're not making important contributions to political discourse. I don't care if they get dogpiled for it.
As a result, my Twitter experience has been smooth.
Didn't you just basically say that what is "awful" is subjective? You're basically saying "maybe echo chambers are better".
I generally agree with "people will tend to believe whatever they want", but many people do change their minds, especially as they age. Pushing people into the underground just makes them more extreme.
Also, don't underestimate the power of public mockery. What makes Nazism most unattractive isn't the fact that it's abhorrent from some moral perspective (that not everybody shares), it's the fact that most actual Nazis are total losers by every measure.
Sure, occasionally an otherwise obscure person might find themselves at the end of an unexpected shitstorm, but otherwise it generally affects more prominent users, who are well aware that anything mildly controversial can turn into lots of angry replies.
Is that even a real problem? Isn't it actually valuable information to know that people get really angry about this-and-that? Aren't researchers able to use this data to learn something about human behavior?
Seems to me like people want to blame technology for something that's really amplified human nature. A rehashing the old story of the "basically good" human corrupted by some foreign evil.
Not saying there aren't solutions for this, I'm saying it's unclear from just looking at the service and I don't care about moderation in the first place. So it's unclear to me how this is "better".
- A timeline that shows what people I follow say, in chronological order
- no censorship, unless requested and enforced by authorities in my jurisdiction
- no notifications, no @messages (unless I follow them)
I don't even understand how Mastodon really works or how it's comparable to Twitter. Do people post onto channels? Do I have to join channels to read what they post on those channels?
To me Mastodon just looks like "Twitter with more moderation" and I don't think the average Twitter user cares about that, because they don't partake in mudfights with other users, nor do they care about other users getting into mudfights with one another.
Social Media isn't actually that terrible to use, it just looks terrible when some journalist selects some particularly "outstanding" posts and proclaims the end of civility because of this technology.
With the fragmentation of Linux, even the "most popular" distro may hold a tiny market share. The guys at dropbox probably know far more about their users than what is reflected in some arbitrary popularity contest, so I doubt it's either ignorance or stupidity that led them to this decision.
That's not how it works. In Germany, the government subsidizes farmers to put up Windfarms, then forces the electric companies to buy the electricity at an inflated price, which those companies charge their customers for. As a result, energy prices in Germany are almost doubled for citizens, whereas companies get to have exemptions, of course.
Then they need to sell surplus energy for negative money when production is too high and import (often nuclear) energy from neighboring countries when it's too low. While they did get rid of most (domestic) nuclear energy, essentially the same amount of fossil fuel is still required to maintain the baseline.
It's utter nonsense, but the Germans get to pat themselves on the back for being so green. Well, except for all that coal energy that also needs subsidies because of those poor coal workers...
Also keep in mind that these are energy spikes that cause negative prices, whereas most industrial uses need a constant and even supply. These spikes are countered by periods of little to no energy.
This is the biggest problem with (most) renewables, they cannot entirely replace coal or nuclear energy for that reason. Energy storage (at cost) is an unsolved problem.
When the media (such as in this piece) perpetuates that same narrative, are they defending their special interest? Seems more like ignorance to me.
If a government is so vulnerable to lobbying, that's still a government failure, it's not the failure of those trying to defend their interest.
Also, the blame is once again put on "corporations" and "wall street gangsters" instead of the failed government policy that caused it (and continues to cause it).
How could Millennials be some massively in debt? Price inflation of higher education caused by government-forced loans backed by fantasy money. Literally the same reason why the housing bubble became a bubble in the first place. And the government gets away with it by blaming those "evil corporations" for taking all that money that was presented on them on a platter.
How could so many people die from opiate overdoses? A government that allows opiates for doctors to prescribe, but then bans those same doctors from prescribing them for the resulting addicts, turning them to black-market.
It was the government that created a health insurance system that doesn't make sense and continues to not make sense under both republican and democratic administration.
Lastly, upward mobility is hampered by preventing the rural population to move to cities that have become unaffordable because of zoning laws and taxes.
Blame the damned government, at least a little bit.
Objectively speaking, if you spend five to six figures on a degree with a 10% chance of landing a job through it, that's not an attractive proposition.
"Futile" may be the wrong word, a better word would be "foolish".
These people are disillusioned and so will the future you be, but your present you has to make the decision. It's incredibly valuable that they're being honest to you and to themselves.
Even in a completely free market, you can get screwed over.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-carbon/scie...
- cheaper to operate
An enormous amount of electricity would be required to actually replace all combustion engines in just regular cars, plus a lot of investment into infrastructure to charge all these cars. Higher demand, higher prices.
- offer better performance
Are the best-selling cars today those with the best performance? No, they're the ones offering acceptable performance at the best price.
- require less maintenance
That's assuming that maintenance cost is a big deciding factor in a car. Cars are assumed to be depreciating assets, when maintenance becomes too expensive they are replaced. There's some argument to be made here for certain vehicles like Taxis with a lot of usage, but the general consumer will not highly value or even accurately estimate maintenance.
- don't emit toxic pollutants
Most consumers don't put a premium on this. Modern combustion engines don't emit a lot of pollutants anymore, but even then it would take government intervention to force people away from them.
- contribute less CO2 emissions
Again, most consumers don't put a premium on this, but government intervention could change that. Synthetic fuels of the future may well be carbon neutral though.
- they offer a better driving experience
...assuming you're not running out of battery.