... the Clintons are basically their best buddies.
At least up until this election season, Trump and the Clintons were good friends as well. So by your definition, Trump is a real fascist with a proven track record.
Now GP is claiming that "piracy is not theft" implies "software cannot be stolen" - apparently attempting debunk the former statement using using recuctio ad absurdum, but failing because that is actually non-sequitur. As I have demonstrated, the statement "arson is not theft" is true in the context of cars but that does not imply the statement "cars can not be stolen". Similarly, in the context of software the statement "piracy is not theft" can be true without implying the statement "software cannot be stolen" at all. The consequent simply doesn't follow from the antecedent.
Clearly software can be stolen. After all, some companies still sell software in physical boxes. I'm surprised anyone would even try to argue otherwise, as it is just plain prima facie silly.
Nine times almost zero is still almost zero. The odds of someone being a terrorist is currently estimated at less than 0.00001%. That's less than one in ten million. So even after multiplying by nine, the odds of an engineer being a terrorist are still only about the same as the chances of that same engineer getting struck by lightning within the next year.
And the DHS has further clarified [redstate.com] the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does. Who gives a crap about whether someone has a green card or not? There's no meaningful difference between a green card holder and an H1-B visa holder in terms of the impact on those people and their families when they suddenly are unable to return to their homes, to their families in the United States, etc. because of this idiotic and ill-conceived ban.
Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.
By that same logic logic, I have no right to complain when a terrorist takes a car and drives over hundreds of people, because I use a car to drive to work....
There's a huge difference between not allowing a bunch of homeless refugees to permanently come to the U.S. (as President Obama did) and not allowing technology professionals who already live in the U.S. to leave the country on business trips and be able to get back in (as President Trump did).
President Obama used the law to limit the rate of refugee entry into the country, and only refugee entry. He did not cancel existing visas. He did not ban people who had a preexisting legal right to enter the U.S. That's the difference. And it's an important difference that has a real-world impact on real people's lives.
Err...I believe there was a clarification yesterday ( maybe from the State Dept?) that said green card holders were not part of the temporary halt of immigration from those 7 countries into the US.
Green cards are not visas. The two are completely unrelated.
A green card is a non-expiring, permanent resident work permit. It confers a right to permanent residency within the U.S., and provides a path to citizenship.
A visa provides temporary entry into the U.S. for various purposes, including tourism, work, education, etc. You've probably heard of some of the work visas, such as H-1B, H-2B, L-1A, L-1B, R-1, etc. There are also specific types of student visas, such as F-1, J-1, and M-1. Some visas allow you to leave and reenter the country, e.g. F-1 and J-1. Some allow you to work, e.g. H*, L*, R*, and J-1. And some just let you be a tourist, e.g. B-1, B-2, etc.
Allowing green card holders to come back to the U.S. is basically unavoidable. They're legal residents of the United States with homes, families, etc. That's also true for many of the visa types, but those folks are currently screwed, which is nothing short of appalling. And it is particularly heinous for students whose schools have a January term (and who thus took the month of January as an extended vacation) who are now trapped outside the country, unable to return to school, potentially losing scholarships, etc., all because our President doesn't know the difference between a green card, a visa, and refugee status admission.
Seagate was bad before they bought Maxtor. There was one year when I had a 100% failure rate of every Seagate drive that I had bought within the past year, consisting of a various drives of various sizes, some laptop, some desktop, some internal, some external.
If anything, my experience with Maxtor drives led me to hope that Seagate would actually improve after the merger, because Maxtor's quality seemed better to me than the level Seagate had fallen to over the few years leading up to the merger. And IIRC, the Seagates that were rebadged Maxtor drives had a considerably lower failure rate than the non-rebadged drives.
Mine is even better because of its simplicity. On my production systems, rm is aliased to 'echo "Use/bin/rm if you really want to do this"' so that it forces me to take a second look at what I'm doing before I run the command in the first place.
... despite claims of the contrary, there is no such thing as "alternative facts"...
That's not actually true. To understand why, you have to look at the parable of the three blind men and the elephant.
Three blind men enter a room and are asked to tell what the object in the room is. One man walks up to a leg and says that the object is a tall, leathery post. The second man walks up to the tusk and says that the object is a hard rocklike statue. The third man walks up to the talk and says that the object is soft, thin, and hairy. Which of those blind men was lying?
The reality of the matter is that all news inherently has some bias. They present the subset of facts that they feel are the most important, and by doing so, must leave out other facts. Most of the time, this filtering does not affect the accuracy of the story. However, if folks aren't careful, they can end up reporting only the subset of facts that support a particular viewpoint. If that happens, then and only then can there be alternate facts that should reasonably change our perception of truth.
With that said, at a fundamental level, facts are either objectively true or they aren't. So if one side says that something happened and the other side says that it didn't, evidence will prove one side or the other to be correct. These truths are irrefutable; only the interpretation of what those facts mean is arguable—their relevance, for example. If an apparent fact appears to contradict another apparent fact in a way that cannot readily be explained away by some set of odd circumstances in which both facts are true at the same time, then one of them must be a lie.
To give two concrete examples:
Trump's claim that more people attended his inauguration than Obama's is provably false. You can look at photos taken as the inauguration began and see how many people were there at that moment. He claims that A > B, and the photo shows that A < B, so clearly those "alternate facts" are, in fact, lies.
Trump's claims that he never said various things are a different story, because to at least some degree, the argument is over how to interpret specific statements. In those situations, alternate facts can exist that support various interpretations of his statements, but only to the extent that we're arguing over whether he conveyed a particular message. If we're arguing over whether he said specific words in a specific order, we're back to facts that are either true or false, and cannot simultaneously be both.
The biggest problem with the world today is that so many people don't understand the difference between those two examples above. They don't understand the difference between facts that are inherently contradictory (A && !A) and facts that are only apparently contradictory (A && !B, where A and B seem to be measuring the same thing at first glance). And unless we teach our kids critical thinking skills, this is only going to get worse. Unfortunately, our public education system has taught kids to mindlessly regurgitate facts instead of teaching them to think and reason for themselves and shows few signs of improvement in this area, so I won't hold my breath. *sigh*
Nuclear war is coming. Get out of the us while you still can.
In the event of an actual nuclear war, the only safe place will be ISS... and even then, only until the food runs out. That's when the cannibalism starts, and after that, it's survival of the fittest. In the end, there can be only one.
It's not that you can't use these. Having all focal distances accessible at the same time is great. But you have to learn to point your nose at whatever you want to look at.
That problem isn't limited to progressive lenses, though it might be worse in those designs. When your eye changes direction, the pupil moves in an arc, which means that its lens gets closer to or farther from the lens in your glasses, which has an entirely different curvature. I'm not certain, but I suspect that it would be physically impossible to build glasses that are in focus regardless of the position of your eye without changing the amount of correction on the fly. Anything that would cause objects to be in focus while looking to the side would cause those same objects to be out of focus when looking straight ahead and vice versa, so the resulting focal accuracy is inherently a compromise.
Even ignoring that problem, at a glance, it seems like there are so many problems with that idea that I almost don't know where to begin. It assumes we trust Facebook to keep the token secure (we don't). It means that if somebody hacks your Facebook account, now they have access to all your accounts (yikes). And so on.
A better solution is to add your home phone and office phone as alternate second factors.
Just a few years ago, the assumption was that pretty much every computer user either owned or pirated Office. There are 1.25 billion Windows users alone, not counting the Mac users, which adds probably another.1 billion or so. So Microsoft's market share went from 100% just a few years back to 1.8% under the rental model. That's not just failing; it's failing very, very badly.
Now this didn't happen all at once, mind you. It all started more than a decade ago when Microsoft massively overcharged for the Mac version of their office suite, resulting in the nascent iWork suite getting a foothold and eventually becoming dominant in that market. From there, they ignored the threat posed by OpenOffice and continued their existing pricing. OO gradually chipped away at the perception that everybody had to own the real thing for interoperability. So when Google Docs arrived on the scene and made it possible for folks to do most of the basics without paying a dime, there was pretty much nothing Microsoft could do about it other than try desperately to milk what was left of their collapsing market for every penny they could squeeze out of them.
The bad news for Microsoft is that no matter what they do, they're unlikely to increase revenue much beyond their current levels. For most people, the free solutions are good enough, and the people for whom that isn't true are mostly already paying them for it. If they raise prices, more customers will look for ways to get by with the free solutions, and they'll lose subscribers. If they lower prices, nobody will suddenly think to themselves, "For just another few bucks a month, I could have Office," because the existing free tools already meet their needs.
At this point, it's pretty much downhill from here as the free solutions continue to improve and the reasons for paying Microsoft continue to diminish. IMO, this is what a company on life support looks like, and as Michael Dell once famously said about another beleaguered company, if I were the CEO, "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." Just saying.
Of course, if that's the only viable Internet service, you'll probably eventually end up with 95 units * $60 = $5700 per month, or $68,400 per year. If everybody signs on, you'll pay for the cost in a little over a year. And if only four customers sign on over the long term... well, then you picked the wrong building to wire, and maybe that's why CenturyLink didn't bother to hook it up.
That's the economic reality: Most underserved areas are underserved for a reason: they aren't profitable. If you really want equality of Internet access, only government can realistically do that, because only government can truly afford not to care whether its capital improvements will break even or not.
(And there's a job that's just ripe for automation. It wouldn't even take a sophisticated neural net. 90% of the financial "analysts" in the world could be replaced by some templates and a bucket of Markov chains, driven by a small shell script.)
In fact, forget the Markov chain... and the templates.
The phrase that comes to mind is, "An automatically mirrored copy is not a backup."
Any real backup strategy requires versioning. For example, my personal data backups involve a NAS providing storage for Time Machine. If a ransomware attack screwed up my Mac, I would have multiple backups that I could restore from, and if the ransomware attacked while the backup was running and corrupted the entire backup volume, I could still roll back the NAS volume to its most recent daily snapshot and restore the Time Machine backup, and I would lose less than one day of changes. And I'm in the process of setting up a clone to an off-site NAS on the other side of the country.
For evidence in an active investigation, I would expect at a bare minimum multiple offsite, offline backups of everything, even if that just means that whatever officers/agents are working on the case keep a copy on their individual laptops. Anything less than that is gross negligence. And this is why we need a federal IT department that provides services to all of these agencies.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about. If the price Thursday was the same as Wednesday, then the events of Thursday didn't even influence Thursday significantly, much less the past.
The price being passed on to consumers is largely a myth. Prices are already set at what the market will bear. If they could charge more, they would already be doing so.
And the taxes will raise those prices, creating a shift in the entire curve. Most of the cost will still end up getting paid by Americans. However, as a consequence, the American poor won't be able to afford fresh produce anymore, and Mexico will sell their excess in other countries, who will have better access to fresh produce as a result.
Then, if the goods made in the country are selling, as opposed to the imports, then there will be increased tax revenue.
Maybe. The trade imbalance with Mexico isn't really that big. They import about 78% as much from us as we do from them. So if we tax imports and they tax imports, the resulting loss of jobs from export reduction would be about 78% of the gain in jobs from import reduction if all things are equal. So even at first glance, you might assume that we would come out only slightly ahead.
Unfortunately, most of our imports from Mexico are things like parts for automobiles, fresh produce, etc., whereas our exports are mostly finished goods. The parts manufacturing jobs would either move to China or would be automated in the U.S., because our labor costs are too high relative to other countries. So there would either be no new jobs or far fewer new jobs than you might expect, and probably fewer jobs than those lost as a result of the export reduction.
As for agriculture, although many Mexicans would love it if we grew more produce (particularly the migrant workers who went back to Mexico because of poor pay during our last economic downturn), these are not the jobs you're looking for, and a trade war would make our illegal immigration problems worse as those migrant workers came back to the U.S. en masse in response to higher demand for workers.
Moreover, foreign companies would be able to build their finished goods in other countries and then ship complete cars to America, thus avoiding the tariffs. This would result in a significant cost advantage over American companies, which would make the economic damage to America even worse than it otherwise would be.
So the bottom line is that when you add it all up, a trade war with Mexico would likely result in a net loss of jobs and taxes, rather than a net gain. Trade wars almost invariably hurt the countries involved far more than they help, which is why most sane countries avoid them at all costs.
I'm hoping this article is either wrong or incomplete. Otherwise, won't this mean a significant increase in breakages? Suppose the main resource relies on two resources, one of which is in the cache, the other of which isn't. Those two resources implicitly depend on one another in some way (e.g. a new version of JavaScript code might require a new version of CSS, or else rendering would be wrong and vice-versa). If the browser validates only the main resource, then unless the URLs for the resources changed, there's now a mismatch. Worse, there's no way for the user to fix it, because reloading doesn't revalidate any of the other resources.
It seems like revalidation of all subresources should happen if any of the following are true:
Any resource other than the main resource was loaded directly (as opposed to from the cache)
The list of subresources referenced by the main resource changed (adding, removing, or changing dependencies).
Then again, I've had so much trouble with CloudFlare caching that I've started putting version numbers in every JS and CSS filename, and I use a server-side include to let me bump that version number site-wide every time I touch something in a backwards-incompatible way, so if other folks use the same approach, then maybe this doesn't matter?
Tumbled? What a load of ultra-right propagandist bulls**t (a.k.a. Fake News). The Mexican dollar got slightly stronger yesterday, and after the announcement, it weakened to almost precisely where it opened yesterday. It is still considerably stronger than it was a week ago, and there's no indication that it is continuing to get weaker as a result of cancelling the meeting with Trump.
In other words, there was a bit of pure statistical noise that resulted in a tiny change that happened to coincide in timing with the cancellation. The market didn't really react to that at all, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Any trade war between the U.S. and Mexico will have little effect on the relative values of our currency, because we both rely on each other pretty heavily. What it will do is lower the dollar of both the Peso and the Dollar against all other world currencies.
Slashdot Mirror
At least up until this election season, Trump and the Clintons were good friends as well. So by your definition, Trump is a real fascist with a proven track record.
Oops.
Allow me to quote Google's definition of fascism:
fascism — n. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
So yeah, it is.
Clearly software can be stolen. After all, some companies still sell software in physical boxes. I'm surprised anyone would even try to argue otherwise, as it is just plain prima facie silly.
Nine times almost zero is still almost zero. The odds of someone being a terrorist is currently estimated at less than 0.00001%. That's less than one in ten million. So even after multiplying by nine, the odds of an engineer being a terrorist are still only about the same as the chances of that same engineer getting struck by lightning within the next year.
Perspective is a funny thing.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does. Who gives a crap about whether someone has a green card or not? There's no meaningful difference between a green card holder and an H1-B visa holder in terms of the impact on those people and their families when they suddenly are unable to return to their homes, to their families in the United States, etc. because of this idiotic and ill-conceived ban.
By that same logic logic, I have no right to complain when a terrorist takes a car and drives over hundreds of people, because I use a car to drive to work....
There's a huge difference between not allowing a bunch of homeless refugees to permanently come to the U.S. (as President Obama did) and not allowing technology professionals who already live in the U.S. to leave the country on business trips and be able to get back in (as President Trump did).
President Obama used the law to limit the rate of refugee entry into the country, and only refugee entry. He did not cancel existing visas. He did not ban people who had a preexisting legal right to enter the U.S. That's the difference. And it's an important difference that has a real-world impact on real people's lives.
Green cards are not visas. The two are completely unrelated.
A green card is a non-expiring, permanent resident work permit. It confers a right to permanent residency within the U.S., and provides a path to citizenship.
A visa provides temporary entry into the U.S. for various purposes, including tourism, work, education, etc. You've probably heard of some of the work visas, such as H-1B, H-2B, L-1A, L-1B, R-1, etc. There are also specific types of student visas, such as F-1, J-1, and M-1. Some visas allow you to leave and reenter the country, e.g. F-1 and J-1. Some allow you to work, e.g. H*, L*, R*, and J-1. And some just let you be a tourist, e.g. B-1, B-2, etc.
Allowing green card holders to come back to the U.S. is basically unavoidable. They're legal residents of the United States with homes, families, etc. That's also true for many of the visa types, but those folks are currently screwed, which is nothing short of appalling. And it is particularly heinous for students whose schools have a January term (and who thus took the month of January as an extended vacation) who are now trapped outside the country, unable to return to school, potentially losing scholarships, etc., all because our President doesn't know the difference between a green card, a visa, and refugee status admission.
Seagate was bad before they bought Maxtor. There was one year when I had a 100% failure rate of every Seagate drive that I had bought within the past year, consisting of a various drives of various sizes, some laptop, some desktop, some internal, some external.
If anything, my experience with Maxtor drives led me to hope that Seagate would actually improve after the merger, because Maxtor's quality seemed better to me than the level Seagate had fallen to over the few years leading up to the merger. And IIRC, the Seagates that were rebadged Maxtor drives had a considerably lower failure rate than the non-rebadged drives.
Mine is even better because of its simplicity. On my production systems, rm is aliased to 'echo "Use /bin/rm if you really want to do this"' so that it forces me to take a second look at what I'm doing before I run the command in the first place.
That's not actually true. To understand why, you have to look at the parable of the three blind men and the elephant.
Three blind men enter a room and are asked to tell what the object in the room is. One man walks up to a leg and says that the object is a tall, leathery post. The second man walks up to the tusk and says that the object is a hard rocklike statue. The third man walks up to the talk and says that the object is soft, thin, and hairy. Which of those blind men was lying?
The reality of the matter is that all news inherently has some bias. They present the subset of facts that they feel are the most important, and by doing so, must leave out other facts. Most of the time, this filtering does not affect the accuracy of the story. However, if folks aren't careful, they can end up reporting only the subset of facts that support a particular viewpoint. If that happens, then and only then can there be alternate facts that should reasonably change our perception of truth.
With that said, at a fundamental level, facts are either objectively true or they aren't. So if one side says that something happened and the other side says that it didn't, evidence will prove one side or the other to be correct. These truths are irrefutable; only the interpretation of what those facts mean is arguable—their relevance, for example. If an apparent fact appears to contradict another apparent fact in a way that cannot readily be explained away by some set of odd circumstances in which both facts are true at the same time, then one of them must be a lie.
To give two concrete examples:
The biggest problem with the world today is that so many people don't understand the difference between those two examples above. They don't understand the difference between facts that are inherently contradictory (A && !A) and facts that are only apparently contradictory (A && !B, where A and B seem to be measuring the same thing at first glance). And unless we teach our kids critical thinking skills, this is only going to get worse. Unfortunately, our public education system has taught kids to mindlessly regurgitate facts instead of teaching them to think and reason for themselves and shows few signs of improvement in this area, so I won't hold my breath. *sigh*
In the event of an actual nuclear war, the only safe place will be ISS... and even then, only until the food runs out. That's when the cannibalism starts, and after that, it's survival of the fittest. In the end, there can be only one.
That problem isn't limited to progressive lenses, though it might be worse in those designs. When your eye changes direction, the pupil moves in an arc, which means that its lens gets closer to or farther from the lens in your glasses, which has an entirely different curvature. I'm not certain, but I suspect that it would be physically impossible to build glasses that are in focus regardless of the position of your eye without changing the amount of correction on the fly. Anything that would cause objects to be in focus while looking to the side would cause those same objects to be out of focus when looking straight ahead and vice versa, so the resulting focal accuracy is inherently a compromise.
That's the same combination I have on my luggage!
Too soon?
Even ignoring that problem, at a glance, it seems like there are so many problems with that idea that I almost don't know where to begin. It assumes we trust Facebook to keep the token secure (we don't). It means that if somebody hacks your Facebook account, now they have access to all your accounts (yikes). And so on.
A better solution is to add your home phone and office phone as alternate second factors.
Thanks for clarifying that they still sell a boxed version. I assume they had gone to the Adobe model.
Just a few years ago, the assumption was that pretty much every computer user either owned or pirated Office. There are 1.25 billion Windows users alone, not counting the Mac users, which adds probably another .1 billion or so. So Microsoft's market share went from 100% just a few years back to 1.8% under the rental model. That's not just failing; it's failing very, very badly.
Now this didn't happen all at once, mind you. It all started more than a decade ago when Microsoft massively overcharged for the Mac version of their office suite, resulting in the nascent iWork suite getting a foothold and eventually becoming dominant in that market. From there, they ignored the threat posed by OpenOffice and continued their existing pricing. OO gradually chipped away at the perception that everybody had to own the real thing for interoperability. So when Google Docs arrived on the scene and made it possible for folks to do most of the basics without paying a dime, there was pretty much nothing Microsoft could do about it other than try desperately to milk what was left of their collapsing market for every penny they could squeeze out of them.
The bad news for Microsoft is that no matter what they do, they're unlikely to increase revenue much beyond their current levels. For most people, the free solutions are good enough, and the people for whom that isn't true are mostly already paying them for it. If they raise prices, more customers will look for ways to get by with the free solutions, and they'll lose subscribers. If they lower prices, nobody will suddenly think to themselves, "For just another few bucks a month, I could have Office," because the existing free tools already meet their needs.
At this point, it's pretty much downhill from here as the free solutions continue to improve and the reasons for paying Microsoft continue to diminish. IMO, this is what a company on life support looks like, and as Michael Dell once famously said about another beleaguered company, if I were the CEO, "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." Just saying.
Of course, if that's the only viable Internet service, you'll probably eventually end up with 95 units * $60 = $5700 per month, or $68,400 per year. If everybody signs on, you'll pay for the cost in a little over a year. And if only four customers sign on over the long term... well, then you picked the wrong building to wire, and maybe that's why CenturyLink didn't bother to hook it up.
That's the economic reality: Most underserved areas are underserved for a reason: they aren't profitable. If you really want equality of Internet access, only government can realistically do that, because only government can truly afford not to care whether its capital improvements will break even or not.
In fact, forget the Markov chain... and the templates.
The phrase that comes to mind is, "An automatically mirrored copy is not a backup."
Any real backup strategy requires versioning. For example, my personal data backups involve a NAS providing storage for Time Machine. If a ransomware attack screwed up my Mac, I would have multiple backups that I could restore from, and if the ransomware attacked while the backup was running and corrupted the entire backup volume, I could still roll back the NAS volume to its most recent daily snapshot and restore the Time Machine backup, and I would lose less than one day of changes. And I'm in the process of setting up a clone to an off-site NAS on the other side of the country.
For evidence in an active investigation, I would expect at a bare minimum multiple offsite, offline backups of everything, even if that just means that whatever officers/agents are working on the case keep a copy on their individual laptops. Anything less than that is gross negligence. And this is why we need a federal IT department that provides services to all of these agencies.
What they really mean is that 15% of humans live under a government that has thus far managed to successfully conceal its corruption.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, everyone in power is corrupt.
Yes, you do. :-)
Remember Smell-U-Smell-Me? Well this is Apple's version, FaceSmell.
I have no idea what you think you're talking about. If the price Thursday was the same as Wednesday, then the events of Thursday didn't even influence Thursday significantly, much less the past.
And the taxes will raise those prices, creating a shift in the entire curve. Most of the cost will still end up getting paid by Americans. However, as a consequence, the American poor won't be able to afford fresh produce anymore, and Mexico will sell their excess in other countries, who will have better access to fresh produce as a result.
Maybe. The trade imbalance with Mexico isn't really that big. They import about 78% as much from us as we do from them. So if we tax imports and they tax imports, the resulting loss of jobs from export reduction would be about 78% of the gain in jobs from import reduction if all things are equal. So even at first glance, you might assume that we would come out only slightly ahead.
Unfortunately, most of our imports from Mexico are things like parts for automobiles, fresh produce, etc., whereas our exports are mostly finished goods. The parts manufacturing jobs would either move to China or would be automated in the U.S., because our labor costs are too high relative to other countries. So there would either be no new jobs or far fewer new jobs than you might expect, and probably fewer jobs than those lost as a result of the export reduction.
As for agriculture, although many Mexicans would love it if we grew more produce (particularly the migrant workers who went back to Mexico because of poor pay during our last economic downturn), these are not the jobs you're looking for, and a trade war would make our illegal immigration problems worse as those migrant workers came back to the U.S. en masse in response to higher demand for workers.
Moreover, foreign companies would be able to build their finished goods in other countries and then ship complete cars to America, thus avoiding the tariffs. This would result in a significant cost advantage over American companies, which would make the economic damage to America even worse than it otherwise would be.
So the bottom line is that when you add it all up, a trade war with Mexico would likely result in a net loss of jobs and taxes, rather than a net gain. Trade wars almost invariably hurt the countries involved far more than they help, which is why most sane countries avoid them at all costs.
I'm hoping this article is either wrong or incomplete. Otherwise, won't this mean a significant increase in breakages? Suppose the main resource relies on two resources, one of which is in the cache, the other of which isn't. Those two resources implicitly depend on one another in some way (e.g. a new version of JavaScript code might require a new version of CSS, or else rendering would be wrong and vice-versa). If the browser validates only the main resource, then unless the URLs for the resources changed, there's now a mismatch. Worse, there's no way for the user to fix it, because reloading doesn't revalidate any of the other resources.
It seems like revalidation of all subresources should happen if any of the following are true:
Then again, I've had so much trouble with CloudFlare caching that I've started putting version numbers in every JS and CSS filename, and I use a server-side include to let me bump that version number site-wide every time I touch something in a backwards-incompatible way, so if other folks use the same approach, then maybe this doesn't matter?
Tumbled? What a load of ultra-right propagandist bulls**t (a.k.a. Fake News). The Mexican dollar got slightly stronger yesterday, and after the announcement, it weakened to almost precisely where it opened yesterday. It is still considerably stronger than it was a week ago, and there's no indication that it is continuing to get weaker as a result of cancelling the meeting with Trump.
In other words, there was a bit of pure statistical noise that resulted in a tiny change that happened to coincide in timing with the cancellation. The market didn't really react to that at all, and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Any trade war between the U.S. and Mexico will have little effect on the relative values of our currency, because we both rely on each other pretty heavily. What it will do is lower the dollar of both the Peso and the Dollar against all other world currencies.