Re:In the real world...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
The largest Linux distributor currently is the Chinese government with Red Flag Linux. There are other widespread distributions (TurboLinux - I can't remember the name of the other) and I think it is Star Linux (I think!) in South America. And then there is Mandrake.
So there are a number of other distributions you haven't taken into account.
RedHat and Suse are the dominant distributions in the USA and Western Europe, though.
It will still be much cheaper to keep those jobs in Asia, on the whole. Several Asian currencies are directly pegged to the dollar in, and the change against those that are not is expected to be 15% whereas outsourcing savings are estimated to be more than this. The movement against the Euro is expected to be 30%. What it may mean, though, is possible increased inflation in the USA. This will have the advantage of eating away at the budget deficit in real terms, but also at savings. It will also mean that the USA will find it easier to sell products to Europe, and not vice versa, which may tend to help prevent some jobs being outsourced and will tend to hurt European manufacturing. This will provide pressure on the Euro, hence the drift is not likely to be more than 30% unless something unexpected happens. One of the reasons why the Euro is doing so well is because despite Euro area growth being lower than that in the USA Europe does not have the current level of US deficit. This makes the Euro a better medium term bet, and movement into the Euro from the dollar tends to push the dollar down, thereby making it a poor short term bet too. Longer term the USA is probably a better bet as the higher birthrate means less of a pensions problem for the USA around 2050 than for Europe or China. However so many things could change between now and 2050 it is hard to predict.
Firstly the masking effect of pollution on the suns rays is not new. It was a big concern in the 1970s when some in the press believed science was predicting a new ice age.
The important part is this sentence:
" Take away fossil fuel by-products like sulfur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions"
But if the source of both is fossil fuels then taking away one will tend to reduce the other.
He's a novelist. When I want to know about what is likely to happen in terms of the climate I'd rather go to a professional such as a climatologist rather than an amateur. I mean, Crichton was responsible for the creation of ER but it doesn't mean I'd want him to treat me if I had a broken leg...
" Developing countries, which are some of the worst polluters per capita and habitat destroyers, have the fastest growing populations. "
That's not correct. Developing countries in terms of the pollution that affects climate change (CO2 production) are some of the smaller producers. In terms of CO2 production per capita Canada heads the list with the USA not far behind. What IS true, though, is that developing countries have poor efficiency in terms of CO2 production per unit of GDP produced (Italy is just about the most efficient country on this score). Most developed nations in terms of per capita pollution are not that vastly different. Certainly we could be doing more to reduce CO2 production in ways which don't impact greatly on lifestyle: e.g. energy efficiency in homes (can save 30% of energy use in new construction with a 2% additional outlay) micro wind generation (circa 20% of household usage for around $2000 outlay) and more efficient motor transport (30% reduction achievable in time).
With regard to destruction of habitat it is also important for those of us living in developed countries to think about how products are created. If the creation includes a component of destruction of habitat in the developing world then we should not buy it and instead buy alternatives that include sustainable development as part of the process. In other words we cannot blame a developing country totally for destroying habitat if it is trying to offset its debt and people in developed nations want to buy cheap products without caring sufficiently about how they are produced. If we create markets in developing nations that provide a living for those engaged in sustainable creation of export goods from developing countries we will be doing good. This having been said it's not always obvious which products have been created using sustainable development so there is definitely a need for more information. It also takes time on our part to make the effort to read the information.
As far as I know only subjects of of the Queen (British citizens and some Commonwealth countries) are eligible. Thus Bob Hope (being born in Britain) was eligible to be called Sir but the likes of Heston and Falk would not (ditto Bob Geldof). But Geldof is Bob Geldof KBE. Whether we'll ever get to see a Dame Madonna is another matter!
"Bigtop's first commercial manifestation will likely be as some kind of large-scale project, most likely a distributed grid-computing operating system, the sources added."
This has already been done (Inferno network OS from Vita Nuova, which is very nice to work with and can also be run hosted on other OSes)
BigWin sounds like wrapping of traditionally OS components in terms of Web Services and hooks to use these. Microsoft has strongly embraced Web Services. This is an entirely obvious development for anyone skilled in the art (Grid Computing).
"i always wondered why there's not an easy way to utilize all of the computers in a network to perform a task. Most of the computers on corporate networks are windows machines, and most of those are sitting idle 99% of the time."
Specifically for Oracle there is Oracle 10g.
For various other classes of computation there are the following (plus others) on windows (and some are cross platform):
* Condor * Entropia * United Devices * BOINC * IBM community grid * Vita Nuova's Inferno * Sun Grid Engine (coming soon)
I'm not aware of things that specifically do load balancing on Windows as opposed to CPU scavenging or batch job submission. My work on Grid systems hasn't addressed this for Windows. I can see ways that some of the tools can be used to achieve load levelling and scavenging combined.
Replication, self-repairing
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
Some of the most fascinating emergent behaviour in cellular automata are self replicating automata and self repairing automata, or perhaps more strictly large scale features embedded within automata that exhibit these properties.
Other fascinating areas are the ability to simulate a generic computer using a cellular automata. Whilst this may not sound very exciting it opens the possibility of building new computing architectures using small units with only local communication. If this is teamed with the ability to replicate and repair systems which can reconfigure themselves or are remarkably fault tolerant are possible, again allowing what might be otherwise apparently unsuitable low level computing surfaces to be used. Ultimately this may prove useful for computing in hostile environments such as in space vehicles which may require systems which are resilient to cosmic rays over multiple decades for deep space probes.
Small units like adders, gates, and so on, are very possible to design using automata.
For my masters I worked on efficient methods of simulating cellular automata with large rule sets and the ability to learn the rule sets from a series of desired examples of state progression using neural networks underlying the mechanism. The motivation was that given a required set of states (essentially a series of snap shots of data processing or self repair) a CA could learn the rules required which could then be studied in detail after rule extraction from the neural network. Sadly I ran out of time to examine the area in as much detail as I would have liked.
A small quibble about the top level blurb introducing this book.
Whilst there is no single gene that determines the behaviour of an ant colony it would be inaccurate to say that there are not genes which control the behaviour. There are multiple genes which control the low-level behaviours from which the gross behaviour emerges.
"So? GDP per capita has nothing to do with GDP production per unit of CO2 produced."
The latter measure is better than the former. However using GDP itself is flawed since GDP also includes a measure of the value of the currency, not necessarily the intrinsic value of the item produced. For example China's currency is effectively devalued compared to the dollar and so its GDP per unit of CO2 produced looks worse than it should because of this.
" I'm saying that production should occur in countries that most efficiently generated GDP with low CO2--or less efficient countries should be made more efficient."
Totally agree. In terms of spreading decent quality of life around the globe the latter is a good aim.
"GDP measures economic activity in absolute terms. PPP does not."
Agreed, I am just pointing out the two extremes of measures of economic acitivity. However it is wrong to assume that GDP measures economic activity per se as it measures a combination of economic activity and currency fluctuatons. However looking at CO2 production per unit of GDP (as PPP) is useful in the sense that allows you to get some measure of the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. There are many measures you can use, though. The old lies, damned lies, and statistics issue.
" I am making the case the Kyoto--which currently exempts the most inefficient countries--should be focused on making those inefficient countries more efficient rather than limiting the output of relatively efficient countries like the United States (and Italy and whatever other countries are relatively efficient)."
It's difficult, as if you impose that now you may have the side effect of saying that rich countries should be able to stay rich. If Kyoto included those terms right now those countries wouldn't sign it. So it wouldn't help matters. Instead those countries will be bound by Kyoto in the future. As it is, per capita, those countries produce a smaller amount of CO2. All countries, though, as oil prices are likely to steadily climb due to demand increasingly outstripping supply, have an interest in becoming more energy efficient. Placing stringent controls on the third world now, while desirable in some senses, would throw the baby out with the bath water. It's a matter of politicking and getting people to come along with you gradually.
"We have totals for each country which somtimes are divided by population to get per capita production of CO2--but that doesn't necessarily mean the consumers consume more CO2... it may simply mean they live in countries with industries that produce a lot of CO2."
Given that several countries have created a CO2 credit trading scheme based on industrial CO2 production several countries do have figures for industrial CO2 production, and quite fine grained ones at that (e.g. Spain). What these figures don't include, however, is the addition of the CO2 budget of the workers. It isn't too hard to add in some compensation factor for this as well, and I don't think it is hypothetical, but more a case of comparing like-with-like.
I fully support research and eventual deployment of alternative energies such as solar, wind power, nuclear, etc.
We don't need to wait for this. The real contribution might be in terms of things which don't need technologies which might be decades in the future, although this will help. There are things which can be done now which will help. For example currently around 45% of US CO2 production is from private motor vehicles excluding long haul transport. Working on relatively modest improvements in fuel efficiency of cars (even just moving away from SUVs to Mini Vans) could have quite a significant impact on this. Given that it also means people paying less per week at the gas pump it shouldn't be too arduous. On top of this iprovements in zoning and the way make journeys to decrease the number of miles travelled will also have an effect. In addition improving traffic flows (the start-stop cycle produce
"No. It allows the efficient to continue producing efficiently while pushing the inefficient to produce more value for the amount of pollution they create."
It does nothing of the sort. One of the most efficient Western nations in terms of GDP production per unit of CO2 produced is Italy, but Italy has a significantly lower GDP per capita than the USA.
"The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2"
Only if you measure the economies in terms of dollar value. If you use PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) the difference isn't so obvious. So the question is do you measure GDP in terms of dollar value, which is subject to currency fluctuations, or based on the level of actual economic activity?
"1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production."
Certainly moving production to a location where the total person-industry CO2 production per unit of economic activity is better makes a lot of sense. I am not sure if this is necessarily the USA as you have to take into account both the CO2 cost of the good and the CO2 cost of the worker and their consumption. If you have an inefficient industrial process but poor workers who produce little CO2 in their daily consumption it might be more efficient overall in terms of CO2 than a very efficient industrial process with workers that are rich and consume a larger amount of resources and conequent CO2 production. You'd have to look per country and per industry on this. The most efficient (in terms of CO2 production), though is to have efficient factories and poor workers that can't consume many material goods.
However the analysis above is assuming that the consumption of goods is based on traditional models. There is a great opportunity for the USA to fund modes of living that are efficient in terms of energy, consumption, and production which might allow a good standard of living while consuming relatively few natural resources. This would effectively transform the footprint of the affluent worker into that of the currently poor worker. This would be the best of both worlds.
(sorry response was a bit rushed as I have to go out).
P.S. In terms of a total of fixed assets and cash, IBM is probably worth more than Microsoft if you exclude the share values. Basically the market is betting on Microsoft's future profits in the short to medium via its share price, and the market assumes that this looks better than for IBM. However in the long term the future is so uncertain that I wouldn't like to bet.
Microsoft has a large market captilisation based on its share price. If it gets involved in a series of long litigations with Novell (and IBM) exercising their patent portfolios in defence then given that the SCO case didn't work out for SCO it might make a number of investors nervous and damage Microsoft's share price.
Microsoft also has a large cash reserve, but if it was forced into a position of a squeeze on its share price it might be forced to use a proportion of that cash to shore up its share price.
Fighting Microsoft might also be bad for Novell and IBM, so I think the Novell and IBM position is essentially one of mutually assured destruction: everyone will lose, so don't try it.
The UK manages to get almost 100% of the votes counted in a general election by morning, with just a few Scottish constituencies with far flung islands left out. But then in a UK general election the vote is simple, whereas in the USA you vote, potentially, the president, senate, representatives, local representatives, various referenda. It makes it very complex in the USA.
The only way to get a fast turnaround whilst using paper is perhaps to split the vote into the presidential race on one piece of paper (the one people are most interested in) and the rest on another, to be counted at a more leisurely pace.
Actually a large proportion of the ice sheet is on land (Greenland) and would be noticed. More than this the influx of freshwater (coupled with water from Siberian rivers) may lead to the Antlantic Conveyor (aka the Gulf Stream) shutting off. This would plunge North Western Europe and to a lesser extent the North East of the North American continent into a very cold climate, and would be very bad indeed for the world economy.
Well, that's what I thought until I noticed a particular word (emphasis mine):
The use of the word 'might' here is a linguistic device and you are not interpreting it correctly context and are lending it weight and meaning it does not posess. Might in this context could mean "may possibly think about" but actually means "when/if".
Slashdot Mirror
The largest Linux distributor currently is the Chinese government with Red Flag Linux. There are other widespread distributions (TurboLinux - I can't remember the name of the other) and I think it is Star Linux (I think!) in South America. And then there is Mandrake.
So there are a number of other distributions you haven't taken into account.
RedHat and Suse are the dominant distributions in the USA and Western Europe, though.
It will still be much cheaper to keep those jobs in Asia, on the whole. Several Asian currencies are directly pegged to the dollar in, and the change against those that are not is expected to be 15% whereas outsourcing savings are estimated to be more than this. The movement against the Euro is expected to be 30%. What it may mean, though, is possible increased inflation in the USA. This will have the advantage of eating away at the budget deficit in real terms, but also at savings. It will also mean that the USA will find it easier to sell products to Europe, and not vice versa, which may tend to help prevent some jobs being outsourced and will tend to hurt European manufacturing. This will provide pressure on the Euro, hence the drift is not likely to be more than 30% unless something unexpected happens. One of the reasons why the Euro is doing so well is because despite Euro area growth being lower than that in the USA Europe does not have the current level of US deficit. This makes the Euro a better medium term bet, and movement into the Euro from the dollar tends to push the dollar down, thereby making it a poor short term bet too. Longer term the USA is probably a better bet as the higher birthrate means less of a pensions problem for the USA around 2050 than for Europe or China. However so many things could change between now and 2050 it is hard to predict.
Firstly the masking effect of pollution on the suns rays is not new. It was a big concern in the 1970s when some in the press believed science was predicting a new ice age.
The important part is this sentence:
" Take away fossil fuel by-products like sulfur dioxide without tackling greenhouse gas emissions"
But if the source of both is fossil fuels then taking away one will tend to reduce the other.
Hmmm... The Da Vinci Code has some of these trappings. However it doesn't make its suggestions true.
He's a novelist. When I want to know about what is likely to happen in terms of the climate I'd rather go to a professional such as a climatologist rather than an amateur. I mean, Crichton was responsible for the creation of ER but it doesn't mean I'd want him to treat me if I had a broken leg...
" Developing countries, which are some of the worst polluters per capita and habitat destroyers, have the fastest growing populations. "
That's not correct. Developing countries in terms of the pollution that affects climate change (CO2 production) are some of the smaller producers. In terms of CO2 production per capita Canada heads the list with the USA not far behind. What IS true, though, is that developing countries have poor efficiency in terms of CO2 production per unit of GDP produced (Italy is just about the most efficient country on this score). Most developed nations in terms of per capita pollution are not that vastly different. Certainly we could be doing more to reduce CO2 production in ways which don't impact greatly on lifestyle: e.g. energy efficiency in homes (can save 30% of energy use in new construction with a 2% additional outlay) micro wind generation (circa 20% of household usage for around $2000 outlay) and more efficient motor transport (30% reduction achievable in time).
With regard to destruction of habitat it is also important for those of us living in developed countries to think about how products are created. If the creation includes a component of destruction of habitat in the developing world then we should not buy it and instead buy alternatives that include sustainable development as part of the process. In other words we cannot blame a developing country totally for destroying habitat if it is trying to offset its debt and people in developed nations want to buy cheap products without caring sufficiently about how they are produced. If we create markets in developing nations that provide a living for those engaged in sustainable creation of export goods from developing countries we will be doing good. This having been said it's not always obvious which products have been created using sustainable development so there is definitely a need for more information. It also takes time on our part to make the effort to read the information.
As far as I know only subjects of of the Queen (British citizens and some Commonwealth countries) are eligible. Thus Bob Hope (being born in Britain) was eligible to be called Sir but the likes of Heston and Falk would not (ditto Bob Geldof). But Geldof is Bob Geldof KBE. Whether we'll ever get to see a Dame Madonna is another matter!
"Bigtop's first commercial manifestation will likely be as some kind of large-scale project, most likely a distributed grid-computing operating system, the sources added."
This has already been done (Inferno network OS from Vita Nuova, which is very nice to work with and can also be run hosted on other OSes)
BigWin sounds like wrapping of traditionally OS components in terms of Web Services and hooks to use these. Microsoft has strongly embraced Web Services. This is an entirely obvious development for anyone skilled in the art (Grid Computing).
"i always wondered why there's not an easy way to utilize all of the computers in a network to perform a task. Most of the computers on corporate networks are windows machines, and most of those are sitting idle 99% of the time."
Specifically for Oracle there is Oracle 10g.
For various other classes of computation there are the following (plus others) on windows (and some are cross platform):
* Condor
* Entropia
* United Devices
* BOINC
* IBM community grid
* Vita Nuova's Inferno
* Sun Grid Engine (coming soon)
I'm not aware of things that specifically do load balancing on Windows as opposed to CPU scavenging or batch job submission. My work on Grid systems hasn't addressed this for Windows. I can see ways that some of the tools can be used to achieve load levelling and scavenging combined.
Some of the most fascinating emergent behaviour in cellular automata are self replicating automata and self repairing automata, or perhaps more strictly large scale features embedded within automata that exhibit these properties. Other fascinating areas are the ability to simulate a generic computer using a cellular automata. Whilst this may not sound very exciting it opens the possibility of building new computing architectures using small units with only local communication. If this is teamed with the ability to replicate and repair systems which can reconfigure themselves or are remarkably fault tolerant are possible, again allowing what might be otherwise apparently unsuitable low level computing surfaces to be used. Ultimately this may prove useful for computing in hostile environments such as in space vehicles which may require systems which are resilient to cosmic rays over multiple decades for deep space probes. Small units like adders, gates, and so on, are very possible to design using automata. For my masters I worked on efficient methods of simulating cellular automata with large rule sets and the ability to learn the rule sets from a series of desired examples of state progression using neural networks underlying the mechanism. The motivation was that given a required set of states (essentially a series of snap shots of data processing or self repair) a CA could learn the rules required which could then be studied in detail after rule extraction from the neural network. Sadly I ran out of time to examine the area in as much detail as I would have liked.
A small quibble about the top level blurb introducing this book.
Whilst there is no single gene that determines the behaviour of an ant colony it would be inaccurate to say that there are not genes which control the behaviour. There are multiple genes which control the low-level behaviours from which the gross behaviour emerges.
Maybe I am just being pedantic.
Why is this being reported as new? I first heard about it more than two years ago (may have been more like three years).
The latter measure is better than the former. However using GDP itself is flawed since GDP also includes a measure of the value of the currency, not necessarily the intrinsic value of the item produced. For example China's currency is effectively devalued compared to the dollar and so its GDP per unit of CO2 produced looks worse than it should because of this.
" I'm saying that production should occur in countries that most efficiently generated GDP with low CO2--or less efficient countries should be made more efficient."
Totally agree. In terms of spreading decent quality of life around the globe the latter is a good aim.
"GDP measures economic activity in absolute terms. PPP does not."
Agreed, I am just pointing out the two extremes of measures of economic acitivity. However it is wrong to assume that GDP measures economic activity per se as it measures a combination of economic activity and currency fluctuatons. However looking at CO2 production per unit of GDP (as PPP) is useful in the sense that allows you to get some measure of the amount of CO2 produced for a given standard of living. There are many measures you can use, though. The old lies, damned lies, and statistics issue.
" I am making the case the Kyoto--which currently exempts the most inefficient countries--should be focused on making those inefficient countries more efficient rather than limiting the output of relatively efficient countries like the United States (and Italy and whatever other countries are relatively efficient)."
It's difficult, as if you impose that now you may have the side effect of saying that rich countries should be able to stay rich. If Kyoto included those terms right now those countries wouldn't sign it. So it wouldn't help matters. Instead those countries will be bound by Kyoto in the future. As it is, per capita, those countries produce a smaller amount of CO2. All countries, though, as oil prices are likely to steadily climb due to demand increasingly outstripping supply, have an interest in becoming more energy efficient. Placing stringent controls on the third world now, while desirable in some senses, would throw the baby out with the bath water. It's a matter of politicking and getting people to come along with you gradually.
"We have totals for each country which somtimes are divided by population to get per capita production of CO2--but that doesn't necessarily mean the consumers consume more CO2... it may simply mean they live in countries with industries that produce a lot of CO2."
Given that several countries have created a CO2 credit trading scheme based on industrial CO2 production several countries do have figures for industrial CO2 production, and quite fine grained ones at that (e.g. Spain). What these figures don't include, however, is the addition of the CO2 budget of the workers. It isn't too hard to add in some compensation factor for this as well, and I don't think it is hypothetical, but more a case of comparing like-with-like.
I fully support research and eventual deployment of alternative energies such as solar, wind power, nuclear, etc.
We don't need to wait for this. The real contribution might be in terms of things which don't need technologies which might be decades in the future, although this will help. There are things which can be done now which will help. For example currently around 45% of US CO2 production is from private motor vehicles excluding long haul transport. Working on relatively modest improvements in fuel efficiency of cars (even just moving away from SUVs to Mini Vans) could have quite a significant impact on this. Given that it also means people paying less per week at the gas pump it shouldn't be too arduous. On top of this iprovements in zoning and the way make journeys to decrease the number of miles travelled will also have an effect. In addition improving traffic flows (the start-stop cycle produce
It does nothing of the sort. One of the most efficient Western nations in terms of GDP production per unit of CO2 produced is Italy, but Italy has a significantly lower GDP per capita than the USA.
"The U.S. has an $11 trillion economy and produces 1,446,777 kilotons of CO2. China has a $6.449 trillion economy and produces 917,997 kilotons of CO2"
Only if you measure the economies in terms of dollar value. If you use PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) the difference isn't so obvious. So the question is do you measure GDP in terms of dollar value, which is subject to currency fluctuations, or based on the level of actual economic activity?
"1) Move more production to the United States where we are better at producing goods at a lower rate of CO2 production."
Certainly moving production to a location where the total person-industry CO2 production per unit of economic activity is better makes a lot of sense. I am not sure if this is necessarily the USA as you have to take into account both the CO2 cost of the good and the CO2 cost of the worker and their consumption. If you have an inefficient industrial process but poor workers who produce little CO2 in their daily consumption it might be more efficient overall in terms of CO2 than a very efficient industrial process with workers that are rich and consume a larger amount of resources and conequent CO2 production. You'd have to look per country and per industry on this. The most efficient (in terms of CO2 production), though is to have efficient factories and poor workers that can't consume many material goods.
However the analysis above is assuming that the consumption of goods is based on traditional models. There is a great opportunity for the USA to fund modes of living that are efficient in terms of energy, consumption, and production which might allow a good standard of living while consuming relatively few natural resources. This would effectively transform the footprint of the affluent worker into that of the currently poor worker. This would be the best of both worlds.
(sorry response was a bit rushed as I have to go out).
Saving money on fuel bills? Yes, noone could possiby want to do that.
P.S. In terms of a total of fixed assets and cash, IBM is probably worth more than Microsoft if you exclude the share values. Basically the market is betting on Microsoft's future profits in the short to medium via its share price, and the market assumes that this looks better than for IBM. However in the long term the future is so uncertain that I wouldn't like to bet.
Microsoft also has a large cash reserve, but if it was forced into a position of a squeeze on its share price it might be forced to use a proportion of that cash to shore up its share price.
Fighting Microsoft might also be bad for Novell and IBM, so I think the Novell and IBM position is essentially one of mutually assured destruction: everyone will lose, so don't try it.
To determine the true spend on OpenSource you need to count more than OSDL. For example Novell's efforts, RedHat's, IBM, Sun, etc., etc.
I remember how, 2 to 3 decades ago, it was predicted that they would be the norm in 2 to 3 decades...
I prefer to use Opera over Mozilla as it seems to crash less often than Mozilla!
The only way to get a fast turnaround whilst using paper is perhaps to split the vote into the presidential race on one piece of paper (the one people are most interested in) and the rest on another, to be counted at a more leisurely pace.
Actually a large proportion of the ice sheet is on land (Greenland) and would be noticed. More than this the influx of freshwater (coupled with water from Siberian rivers) may lead to the Antlantic Conveyor (aka the Gulf Stream) shutting off. This would plunge North Western Europe and to a lesser extent the North East of the North American continent into a very cold climate, and would be very bad indeed for the world economy.
The use of the word 'might' here is a linguistic device and you are not interpreting it correctly context and are lending it weight and meaning it does not posess. Might in this context could mean "may possibly think about" but actually means "when/if".
Ignore my other comment, it seems that the slashdot board didn't properly nest the comment I replied to with the parent to that
HTML doesn't run anywhere, it is simply a document type.