I wonder how many troubled teens have looked at similar pictures on Instagram and then said to themselves "What the hell was I thinking" and then quietly didn't do anything unfortunate.
The EC is not the popular vote. Nothing about the EC is a basis for any claims about the popular mandate. Trump lost the popular vote (so no popular mandate). The non-voters can't be said to have wanted Trump.
Obama won the popular vote as well as the EC. So did every president in the 20th century. W. won the popular vote for one term, but only won in the EC for the other term. How large the margin of victory in the popular vote needs to be to constitute a mandate is up for debate, but I don't think there's much controversy in the claim that it must be a positive number at least.
The non-voters are an amalgam of people who genuinely don't care, people who don't like any of the choices, people who feel that because of the EC their vote won't matter, people who remain undecided, people who can't get to the polling place, people whop forgot what day it is, and people who are not eligible to vote for various reasons.
That doesn't change the fact that Trump and his supporters have no basis to claim the existence of a popular mandate for Trump or his policies. There isn't one. Most of the people didn't want him to be president.
You might as well claim that you could have beaten Usain Bolt in the Olympics if you had trained for that.
So what if someone has a medical app that needs to display a CT image that is more than 1MB? So sorry, no browser for you!
A debugging tool that is off by default WILL get used by non-developers, but that's fine. Any brokenness that happens then is something the user signed up for.
None of that counters the well documented FACT that Trump did not capture the majority of the popular vote. Grumpy claims of "well he coulda if he really wanted to" don't change that. I can just as easily claim that if the Dems had run ANYBODY other than Clinton (not even that well liked in the Dem's own rank and file), Trump wouldn't have even come close. Alas, that doesn't change anything either. Likewise in the primaries had the GOP come up with anything but a rogue's gallery of the unelectable to go against Trump...
No, what I am saying is that any claim that Trump has a mandate from the majority of the people is unfounded. I was specifically responding to a claim that the majority of the people supported Trump's policies. A claim that is easily falsified and made even more ludicrous given that he couldn't even rally enough legislators in his own party to avoid the first single party government shutdown in the history of the United States.
When the system was set up, news traveled at the speed of horse when it traveled at all. Most people went their entire lives without a single interaction with the federal government. The bulk of commerce was INTRAstate. The electoral college made good sense under those conditions.
Then times changed, We invented telegraph and interstate commerce became much more common. Now, it's practically impossible to avoid interaction with the federal government. Recognizing that and popular sentiment, all 50 states either by law or by striong convention cast their electoral votes based on the popular vote. It was a quick way to implement a popular vote for the president without re-engineering the whole thing and passing a Constitutional amendment. It was widely seen as close enough. So close, in fact, that no president in the 20th century was elected after losing the popular vote. The possibility was seen as more theoretical than practical and so was considered a "quirk".
Innocent until proven guilty. Fortunate and unfortunate coincidence does happen all the time. Long chains of fortune may strain credulity, but single coincidences are not only common, but a lack of them would strain credulity.
Take any disaster in history and you will probably find a number of people who survived because their alarm didn't go off or the car wouldn;'t start or they couldn't find their keycard, etc. On the other side, there are people who mis-dial and accidentally set up a drug buy with a cop or who butt dial 911 while committing a crime.
The thing about "I forgot" is that people do forget. Spend 1 day at an IT help desk and you will know for a fact that people forget important passwords all the time. The more pressure there is to remember, the less likely remembering is.
Given that and your response, I'll check the shredder for the Constitution. It's in there somewhere.
So the real fix if for google to fix the "aw snap" display to not block you from reading what was already rendered successfully rather than seeking to break even more stuff.
When they did that with flash, it was only after HTML5 was fully capable of doing everything Flash was doing. They were sunsetting legacy code.
It's a little hard to tell what we're signing up for here since the supporting design docs are all internal only. That is, they are presenting a contract with a blank cover seet covering all but the dotted line and saying "just sign here".
What it sounds like is that we will end up with abominations where pages that naturally and intrinsically need a function to take more than 200ms to complete will sprout a "keep going" button that the user must click repeatedly until the progress bar reaches 100%.
That and a heap of "burma shave" sites where to read the top ten list, you have to click through 10 page loads. (and 10 ad loads, of course). Is there anyone who actually likes that presentation format?
If they really want to improve the web browsing experience, they can quit moving the text out from under my eyes every time a slow ad server finally coughs up an image and causes a text reflow. Make a stop button that stops all executing javascript and cancels any pending loads leaving the page exactly as it is currently rendered.
The problem there is that google is turning slow but working sites into broken sites even if the slowness cannot be avoided without removing needed functionality.
It looks like they're going so far as to limit image size. That's because Google can't ever be wrong and had done an extensive study of everything in consultation with God himself and knows there exist no valid applications exist where 1 MB isn't good enough for everybody.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
My guess is that the workarounds will double code complexity and cause many new and exciting bugs as a result.
Exactly. All they are doing is enshrining heisenbugs as a design feature. Congested network or busy computer means pages are broken and useless rather than slow but functional (then Google blames the web pages)..
There are a few pages where I use synchronous requests as a design decision. I do that since until that transaction completes, there is no valid user action available other than closing the tab. It's a documented API choice, so I don't feel at all bad about using it. Google should feel bad about breaking it.
It appears that they also want to cap image sizes (bye bye medical applications and others). Let me guess, the leading cause of delays, slow ad servers, will get an exception granted.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many troubled teens have looked at similar pictures on Instagram and then said to themselves "What the hell was I thinking" and then quietly didn't do anything unfortunate.
Where?
Apparently not the mall and often not the park these days, so where?
The EC is not the popular vote. Nothing about the EC is a basis for any claims about the popular mandate. Trump lost the popular vote (so no popular mandate). The non-voters can't be said to have wanted Trump.
Obama won the popular vote as well as the EC. So did every president in the 20th century. W. won the popular vote for one term, but only won in the EC for the other term. How large the margin of victory in the popular vote needs to be to constitute a mandate is up for debate, but I don't think there's much controversy in the claim that it must be a positive number at least.
The non-voters are an amalgam of people who genuinely don't care, people who don't like any of the choices, people who feel that because of the EC their vote won't matter, people who remain undecided, people who can't get to the polling place, people whop forgot what day it is, and people who are not eligible to vote for various reasons.
That doesn't change the facts one iota. He has no popular mandate at all.
That doesn't change the fact that Trump and his supporters have no basis to claim the existence of a popular mandate for Trump or his policies. There isn't one. Most of the people didn't want him to be president.
You might as well claim that you could have beaten Usain Bolt in the Olympics if you had trained for that.
So what if someone has a medical app that needs to display a CT image that is more than 1MB? So sorry, no browser for you!
A debugging tool that is off by default WILL get used by non-developers, but that's fine. Any brokenness that happens then is something the user signed up for.
Sure, that's why they're not being criminally prosecuted, but it doesn't change the customer PERCEPTION and EXPECTATION.
The thing is, that's the system for waiters. Customers don't necessarily know it is being applied to non-waiters as well.
None of that counters the well documented FACT that Trump did not capture the majority of the popular vote. Grumpy claims of "well he coulda if he really wanted to" don't change that. I can just as easily claim that if the Dems had run ANYBODY other than Clinton (not even that well liked in the Dem's own rank and file), Trump wouldn't have even come close. Alas, that doesn't change anything either. Likewise in the primaries had the GOP come up with anything but a rogue's gallery of the unelectable to go against Trump...
No, what I am saying is that any claim that Trump has a mandate from the majority of the people is unfounded. I was specifically responding to a claim that the majority of the people supported Trump's policies. A claim that is easily falsified and made even more ludicrous given that he couldn't even rally enough legislators in his own party to avoid the first single party government shutdown in the history of the United States.
And that's because the Constitution is in the shredder.
When the system was set up, news traveled at the speed of horse when it traveled at all. Most people went their entire lives without a single interaction with the federal government. The bulk of commerce was INTRAstate. The electoral college made good sense under those conditions.
Then times changed, We invented telegraph and interstate commerce became much more common. Now, it's practically impossible to avoid interaction with the federal government. Recognizing that and popular sentiment, all 50 states either by law or by striong convention cast their electoral votes based on the popular vote. It was a quick way to implement a popular vote for the president without re-engineering the whole thing and passing a Constitutional amendment. It was widely seen as close enough. So close, in fact, that no president in the 20th century was elected after losing the popular vote. The possibility was seen as more theoretical than practical and so was considered a "quirk".
Meanwhile, when did 55% become a squashing?
Somebody with mod points is butthurt.
Too Republican. Now that the Dems control the house, the committee can get back to work.
Trump didn't even get the majority of votes cast, much less have a majority of the people vote for him.
He squeaked by because of quirks in the electoral system.
They must be shitting bricks by now...
Innocent until proven guilty. Fortunate and unfortunate coincidence does happen all the time. Long chains of fortune may strain credulity, but single coincidences are not only common, but a lack of them would strain credulity.
Take any disaster in history and you will probably find a number of people who survived because their alarm didn't go off or the car wouldn;'t start or they couldn't find their keycard, etc. On the other side, there are people who mis-dial and accidentally set up a drug buy with a cop or who butt dial 911 while committing a crime.
The thing about "I forgot" is that people do forget. Spend 1 day at an IT help desk and you will know for a fact that people forget important passwords all the time. The more pressure there is to remember, the less likely remembering is.
Given that and your response, I'll check the shredder for the Constitution. It's in there somewhere.
Perhaps you should read the link provided in the summary.
Everything I said is based on things the actual owner of the feature said.
So the real fix if for google to fix the "aw snap" display to not block you from reading what was already rendered successfully rather than seeking to break even more stuff.
The joke is that Google wants to remove your ability to block those ads and break the actual content instead.
So your alternative is to make the browser broken in a way that some things that now work fine will just never work again?
When they did that with flash, it was only after HTML5 was fully capable of doing everything Flash was doing. They were sunsetting legacy code.
It's a little hard to tell what we're signing up for here since the supporting design docs are all internal only. That is, they are presenting a contract with a blank cover seet covering all but the dotted line and saying "just sign here".
What it sounds like is that we will end up with abominations where pages that naturally and intrinsically need a function to take more than 200ms to complete will sprout a "keep going" button that the user must click repeatedly until the progress bar reaches 100%.
That and a heap of "burma shave" sites where to read the top ten list, you have to click through 10 page loads. (and 10 ad loads, of course). Is there anyone who actually likes that presentation format?
If they really want to improve the web browsing experience, they can quit moving the text out from under my eyes every time a slow ad server finally coughs up an image and causes a text reflow. Make a stop button that stops all executing javascript and cancels any pending loads leaving the page exactly as it is currently rendered.
The problem there is that google is turning slow but working sites into broken sites even if the slowness cannot be avoided without removing needed functionality.
It looks like they're going so far as to limit image size. That's because Google can't ever be wrong and had done an extensive study of everything in consultation with God himself and knows there exist no valid applications exist where 1 MB isn't good enough for everybody.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
My guess is that the workarounds will double code complexity and cause many new and exciting bugs as a result.
Exactly. All they are doing is enshrining heisenbugs as a design feature. Congested network or busy computer means pages are broken and useless rather than slow but functional (then Google blames the web pages)..
There are a few pages where I use synchronous requests as a design decision. I do that since until that transaction completes, there is no valid user action available other than closing the tab. It's a documented API choice, so I don't feel at all bad about using it. Google should feel bad about breaking it.
It appears that they also want to cap image sizes (bye bye medical applications and others). Let me guess, the leading cause of delays, slow ad servers, will get an exception granted.
Firefox is looking better every day.
They never did willingly listen. They had to be bludgeoned with it on social media just like the other companies.