Funny... but since you mentioned it, all of the plastic in earth's oceans wouldn't replace even one *millionth* of Saturn's rings, and it's also going away at least an entire order of magnitude faster than the rate at which humans have ever added plastic to our oceans.
If a person is genuinely worried that a company will know that they are playing with what is ultimately just a toy, they are probably paranoid enough to turn off connectivity when they use the app in the first place.
Why in the world would you assume I was talking about the global population as if it were static?
Because that's what you said:
Oh, that's also quite sustainable; it's simply not sustainable with the current size of the global population....
(emphasis mine).
Anyways... to your next point
It's happening because of the first world standard of living which you were besmirching. If we could extend the same quality of life to the rest of the planet it is likely that we would see a similar reduction in population growth around the globe... after a couple generations. To say that such a solution is unlikely to come in time is a gross understatement.
That will solve the issue of overpopulation, sure... but it will not solve the matter of how the existing population is continuing to do damage to our environment... it was *THAT* which was alleged to be entirely sustainable... and you now appear to be arguing that it should somehow continue to be indefinitely sustainable even if the population were static, and this is utterly false (not to mention entirely contradictory to your original statement which was that it was supposedly *not* sustainable with the "current size of the global population"). If that's not moving the goalposts, I have no idea what is.
My argument has always been that the damage we are doing will not leave the developed countries' lifestyles sustainable in the long run... but this is quite far removed from making the planet actually uninhabitable, which was the exaggeration I was originally objecting to.
Sure... but there's a rather large difference between phoning home on launch and "spying". One doesn't change with what you do, the other does. One can potentially be used to track you, the other cannot.
Yes, when Edge first came out it was quite far behind in compatibility. Take a look at the html5 compatibility page I referred to above, however... you will see just how far Edge has come. It's actually apparently playing leapfrog with Firefox nowadays, with each successive version of each being ever so slightly more compliant than the latest version of the other browser.
They both have a long way to catch up to Chrome, however.
My point remains. Edge seems to be pretty darn respectable now... and quite comparable to Firefox in terms of overall compatibility.
You are aware that the app works even if you don't have a connection, right? Once the firmware has been downloaded to the device, no internet connectivity is required from that point forward.
My point is that we aren't really going back to emulators when the NES and SNES retro console aren't available anymore because those consoles were actually emulators too, and so that's all that we've ever been using the entire time anyways.
"vast"? Not really.... yes, there's a lot it doesn't support, but that's because CSS3 itself is pretty vast, and most of what it doesn't support isn't the stuff that is commonly used.
I'm not saying it's not a shortfall or that they don't need to worry about it, but nitpicking about how it doesn't handle 50% of the cases that only occur 5% of the time is still blowing the matter into something far bigger than it needs to be.
You make a good point... handling this in a robust fashion would be non-trivial.
But it's still possible to do such that it would not incur any additional runtime overhead on any already-playing video... although the only general mechanism I can think of for doing this without impacting video playback speed may introduce a small delay to how long it takes a video to begin to play in the first place (on the order of no more than perhaps a hundred ms or so).
I will generally defend Edge as being a pretty damn decent web browser. The latest version of it is even slightly better than Firefox in terms of html standards compliance (in fact, it seems that for the past several iterations, the two browsers seem to be continually leapfrogging past eachother in that regard). Of the major browsers, only Chrome has any kind of significant lead in that area.
That said, I agree 100% with the above post. An empty html element should be trivial to detect and ignore even before it gets to the actual rendering stage. If I were an Edge developer I would have wanted to push out a fix for this, not because I wanted to engage Google in any kinds of arms race, but simply because I want to make my product as good as I can, and if there is *ANY* known case that causes serious performance degradation which I know I can easily fix by adding maybe only a half dozen or so more lines of code, I'm going to want to put that fix in.
You are moving the goalposts of your position, which was originally that there were too many people to begin with, not that the population was growing without being checked.
But to address that point, as I had already said, in developed nations, the growth rate is already starting to slow down... and this is not happening because people are dying or because people are being forced into having smaller families.
I'm not suggesting that the past doesn't matter - I'm only saying that Edge appears to actually be pretty much on par with most of the other popular browsers when it comes to standards, and people ought to evaluate Edge based on where it actually is today instead of assuming that it's another pisshole like IE was just because it happens to come from Microsoft.
Not in any global warming scenario that has ever been realistically projected.
Everything else in your post, I am entirely on the same page as you about...
But because there's a whole lot more to being alive than just mere "survival".... projecting some kind of hypothetical worst case scenario that doesn't have any actual scientific justification to trigger an emotional response doesn't really help the science that shows that this is something we still really need to fix.
But the number of websites which works in Firefox and Chrome but not Edge, is so big....
Strange... because currently the latest version of Edge is actually one point ahead of Firefox in terms of html standards compliance, and the upcoming version only one point behind.
Edge's javascript compliance with ES6 currently trails behind Firefox and Chrome, with almost all of it's inferiority being here. and here. These parts of Javascript are not, in practice, that significant. I won't say they are nothing, but they are still quite far removed from being needed in most cases.
I find it dubious that there are that many significant websites which would not work with Edge while working fine with another browser like Firefox unless they were specifically designed to be hostile to Edge. You may be able to find a few, but I am skeptical that the number is, as you say, "so big".
Believe it or not, it seems that MS really learned their lesson. Edge ain't perfect, but it virtually on par with most other browsers for standards compliance. Only Chrome has a significant lead in that regard.
Of course, I imagine it's just a whole lot easier to carry on the MS hate than it is to actually pause and take a look at what's really going on.
Oh, that's also quite sustainable; it's simply not sustainable with the current size of the global population. You could implement China's one-child policy on a global level and fix the problem in a couple generations...
Funny, as China's one-child policy did not actually stop their population from growing It slowed the growth rate down, but you said the problem was the size of the population, not its rate of growth (which, incidentally, is only just beginning to slow down now in developed countries anyways).
Also, the mechanisms that were used in China to restrict the number of children people were allowed, such as mandatory sterilization in hospitals after the birth of their first (or sometimes 2nd) child, and denial of fundamental human rights to people who continued to violate the policy, would not be practical to implement in the western world.
Not to mention the fact that you are still talking about making changes to the status quo, whether by implementing social policy, or through war or starvation, which by definition is an admission that it isn't actually sustainable in the first place.
I picked up on the sarcasm of this statement just fine:
Oh well I can certainly see how such a trivial issue as the Earth, being the only planet we can currently live on for the foreseeable future, continuing to be habitable wouldn't interest anyone
The implication in this, however, is that continuing to ignore the problem might actually ultimately render this planet *UN*inhabitable.
Which is not the case, and suggesting that it is so is hyperbole.
It's serious. It's damn serious. And I'm not for a second suggesting that anyone should ignore it.
But that shouldn't offer a license to exaggerate about the outcome either.
As another commenter has pointed out, I was thinking of Iceland, not Norway... my bad. Still, not every place has an excess of hydroelectric power either, and the point still stands.
I didn't say that a person was *not* a professional if they used swear words, I suggested that swearing is not typically considered to be professional *behavior*... as in how a person acts around others.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny... but since you mentioned it, all of the plastic in earth's oceans wouldn't replace even one *millionth* of Saturn's rings, and it's also going away at least an entire order of magnitude faster than the rate at which humans have ever added plastic to our oceans.
If a person is genuinely worried that a company will know that they are playing with what is ultimately just a toy, they are probably paranoid enough to turn off connectivity when they use the app in the first place.
Because that's what you said:
(emphasis mine).
Anyways... to your next point
That will solve the issue of overpopulation, sure... but it will not solve the matter of how the existing population is continuing to do damage to our environment... it was *THAT* which was alleged to be entirely sustainable... and you now appear to be arguing that it should somehow continue to be indefinitely sustainable even if the population were static, and this is utterly false (not to mention entirely contradictory to your original statement which was that it was supposedly *not* sustainable with the "current size of the global population"). If that's not moving the goalposts, I have no idea what is.
My argument has always been that the damage we are doing will not leave the developed countries' lifestyles sustainable in the long run... but this is quite far removed from making the planet actually uninhabitable, which was the exaggeration I was originally objecting to.
Sure... but there's a rather large difference between phoning home on launch and "spying". One doesn't change with what you do, the other does. One can potentially be used to track you, the other cannot.
Yes, when Edge first came out it was quite far behind in compatibility. Take a look at the html5 compatibility page I referred to above, however... you will see just how far Edge has come. It's actually apparently playing leapfrog with Firefox nowadays, with each successive version of each being ever so slightly more compliant than the latest version of the other browser.
They both have a long way to catch up to Chrome, however.
My point remains. Edge seems to be pretty darn respectable now... and quite comparable to Firefox in terms of overall compatibility.
You are aware that the app works even if you don't have a connection, right? Once the firmware has been downloaded to the device, no internet connectivity is required from that point forward.
And just how long do you think that is?
Yes, it will eventually die, but when a battery lasts for years and years, it's not doing too badly.
My point is that we aren't really going back to emulators when the NES and SNES retro console aren't available anymore because those consoles were actually emulators too, and so that's all that we've ever been using the entire time anyways.
"vast"? Not really.... yes, there's a lot it doesn't support, but that's because CSS3 itself is pretty vast, and most of what it doesn't support isn't the stuff that is commonly used.
I'm not saying it's not a shortfall or that they don't need to worry about it, but nitpicking about how it doesn't handle 50% of the cases that only occur 5% of the time is still blowing the matter into something far bigger than it needs to be.
You make a good point... handling this in a robust fashion would be non-trivial.
But it's still possible to do such that it would not incur any additional runtime overhead on any already-playing video... although the only general mechanism I can think of for doing this without impacting video playback speed may introduce a small delay to how long it takes a video to begin to play in the first place (on the order of no more than perhaps a hundred ms or so).
I will generally defend Edge as being a pretty damn decent web browser. The latest version of it is even slightly better than Firefox in terms of html standards compliance (in fact, it seems that for the past several iterations, the two browsers seem to be continually leapfrogging past eachother in that regard). Of the major browsers, only Chrome has any kind of significant lead in that area.
That said, I agree 100% with the above post. An empty html element should be trivial to detect and ignore even before it gets to the actual rendering stage. If I were an Edge developer I would have wanted to push out a fix for this, not because I wanted to engage Google in any kinds of arms race, but simply because I want to make my product as good as I can, and if there is *ANY* known case that causes serious performance degradation which I know I can easily fix by adding maybe only a half dozen or so more lines of code, I'm going to want to put that fix in.
You are moving the goalposts of your position, which was originally that there were too many people to begin with, not that the population was growing without being checked.
But to address that point, as I had already said, in developed nations, the growth rate is already starting to slow down... and this is not happening because people are dying or because people are being forced into having smaller families.
Wrong.
I'm not suggesting that the past doesn't matter - I'm only saying that Edge appears to actually be pretty much on par with most of the other popular browsers when it comes to standards, and people ought to evaluate Edge based on where it actually is today instead of assuming that it's another pisshole like IE was just because it happens to come from Microsoft.
Not in any global warming scenario that has ever been realistically projected.
Everything else in your post, I am entirely on the same page as you about...
But because there's a whole lot more to being alive than just mere "survival".... projecting some kind of hypothetical worst case scenario that doesn't have any actual scientific justification to trigger an emotional response doesn't really help the science that shows that this is something we still really need to fix.
Strange... because currently the latest version of Edge is actually one point ahead of Firefox in terms of html standards compliance, and the upcoming version only one point behind.
Edge's javascript compliance with ES6 currently trails behind Firefox and Chrome, with almost all of it's inferiority being here. and here. These parts of Javascript are not, in practice, that significant. I won't say they are nothing, but they are still quite far removed from being needed in most cases.
I find it dubious that there are that many significant websites which would not work with Edge while working fine with another browser like Firefox unless they were specifically designed to be hostile to Edge. You may be able to find a few, but I am skeptical that the number is, as you say, "so big".
Edge isn't IE.
Believe it or not, it seems that MS really learned their lesson. Edge ain't perfect, but it virtually on par with most other browsers for standards compliance. Only Chrome has a significant lead in that regard.
Of course, I imagine it's just a whole lot easier to carry on the MS hate than it is to actually pause and take a look at what's really going on.
Funny, as China's one-child policy did not actually stop their population from growing It slowed the growth rate down, but you said the problem was the size of the population, not its rate of growth (which, incidentally, is only just beginning to slow down now in developed countries anyways).
Also, the mechanisms that were used in China to restrict the number of children people were allowed, such as mandatory sterilization in hospitals after the birth of their first (or sometimes 2nd) child, and denial of fundamental human rights to people who continued to violate the policy, would not be practical to implement in the western world.
Not to mention the fact that you are still talking about making changes to the status quo, whether by implementing social policy, or through war or starvation, which by definition is an admission that it isn't actually sustainable in the first place.
I picked up on the sarcasm of this statement just fine:
The implication in this, however, is that continuing to ignore the problem might actually ultimately render this planet *UN*inhabitable.
Which is not the case, and suggesting that it is so is hyperbole.
It's serious. It's damn serious. And I'm not for a second suggesting that anyone should ignore it.
But that shouldn't offer a license to exaggerate about the outcome either.
Well... not unless you're doing a hotels dot com ad... in which case the appearance is practically mandatory.
As another commenter has pointed out, I was thinking of Iceland, not Norway... my bad. Still, not every place has an excess of hydroelectric power either, and the point still stands.
Of course not.... I'm just saying that there's no need for hyperbole.
To be fair here, it will take far worse than even the worst foreseeable global warming to make this planet actually uninhabitable for us.
It's not human *life* that is not sustainable the direction that we are going, it is the developed country life-*style* that is not sustainable.
Not every place on earth is so fortunate. If they can make it there they can make it anywhere seems a bit suspect, if you ask me.
I didn't say that a person was *not* a professional if they used swear words, I suggested that swearing is not typically considered to be professional *behavior*... as in how a person acts around others.