anthuman

I guess that's one definition of static webpage. My understanding was that static webpages are static. Meaning it has no dynamic content and that everyone accessing the static page sees the same thing.

If dynamic content is client side driven, it wouldn't be "static" as each client could see a different page.

For example, even if you your webpage just displayed the client side time, it would be dynamic since people in different time zones will see a different time regardless of the time being generated on the client side.

Whether it is a static class or a static webpage, static has a well established meaning in the CS world. But I haven't done web development since college and it is possible the meaning of static webpage has changed as technology changes.

I respect and admire the risks Musk is willing to take and am amazed that he is able to find financial backers for his projects.

But I have to wonder whether the internet connection can be maintained during cloudy days and what the expected upload/download speeds will be and finally what the expected costs will be.

Affordable and globally available internet could be a game-changer. If viable, couldn't it challenge wireless carriers and ISPs?

Also, aren't there geopolitical ramifications. Would China, Russia, EU, etc allow their citizens to access the starlink system? Or will starlink have to be censored, filtered and monitored in these regions?

You can specialize and play a bunch of things. Pretty much everyone does it. You can be a chess prodigy and still play checkers, monopoly, video games, etc. Using your logic, nobody specializes because they all do other things.

As for Sanders, I'm well aware of his football and baseball careers because I was a kid who grew up watching him in the 90s. 1 "decent" season doesn't make a "phenom". Okay? In 1992, sanders didn't make the all-star team, he didn't get over 100 hits, he played less than 100 games. Sanders career batting average is the .260s. He was nothing special in baseball. Unless your definition of "phenomenal" is different than mine. Deion Sanders was phenomenal in football. He is arguably the greater cornerback in NFL history and a hall of famer. If deion sanders was a phenomenal center fielder, then what is ken griffey, kirby puckett, etc?

As for bo jackson, how about he specialized in track&field, baseball and football. You can argue all you want, bo jackson specialized. He didn't go into curling, badminton, tennis, hockey, etc. He didn't "generalize". He was a rare phenomenal athlete who could specialize in multiple sports.

If you disagree then your definition of phenomenal and specializing is different and we are simply never going to agree and I'll just leave it at that.

Right. And I'm giving examples of prodigies who made it. My point is that "one size fits all" doesn't work.

I'm sure for every Tiger Woods or Serena Williams, there are late bloomers or generalists who thrived. For every example, there is a counterexample.

The blanket statement "You don't want a child prodigy" is simply false. Sometimes you want child prodigies if you can provide a great environment for them to thrive in.

I don't think Tiger Wood or Serena Williams would be where they are if they "generalized" and then decided to specialize later in life. Certain endeavors benefit from early commitment. Not always of course. Hakeem Olajuwon was a great NBA center who started playing basketball in his late teens. But then again, his size and pure athleticism allowed him to overcome late specialization. I don't think it would have worked had be been a point guard.

I know lebron played football. I'm sure he played some baseball and soccer too.

Everyone you listed specialized in a particular sport. Specializing in a particular sport doesn't mean that's all you do. You can specialize in hockey but also play baseball or basketball for fun, etc. And if you are exceptionally gifted, nothing prevents you from "specializing" in two sports. But the point is that you "specialize".

I wouldn't call Jordan, Gretzky, Sanders or Robinson "phenomenal" "multi-sport" athletes. Jordan wasn't a phenomenal baseball player. Neither was Deion Sanders. I've never heard of gretzky being "phenomenal" outside of hockey. I only know of Robinson from baseball. And Bo Jackson specialized in two sports and he was phenomenal in both.

Once again, you can specialize in a sport and play other sports.

It depends on whether you think non-STEM endeavors like athletic performance or art enriches society.

Does michael jordan dunking from the free throw line enrich society? Does mozart's music enrich society?

Did Bolt or Phelps breaking records at the olympics affect society or humanity? I'd say yes. Beyond the inspirational and the aspirational, it also pushed humans limits further.

Does art ( physical, musical, literary, etc ) matter? I'd say it matters, maybe even more than "STEM". But that's an open-ended philosophical discussion.

Athletic endeavors also help advance science as well. There is a science of athletics/athleticism. Striving for athletic excellence could drive genetic, biological and technological advancement and vice versa.

I suspect rising income inequality and increasing housing costs are the primary drivers of CC debt.

You generally can't pay rent with a CC and if rent goes up but income doesn't, then I could see people using CC to make ends meet.

Of course for some, overconsumption is the culprit, but I doubt it is for most people.

Sure. But then we won't have mozart or lebron james or turing or messi or most of the olympic athletes, etc.

It's a question of breadth vs depth. Specialization vs generalization.

I suppose most kids should be given a generalized "education". But if a kid is precocious or talented, then specialization makes sense.

Whatever happens, everyone lives with the "what if" or questions about the road not taken.

I suspect more and more funding will go to the Space Force and less and less will go to NASA. Looking at the budgets, it's clear that the military has far more pull in washington than NASA. Seems like whatever the military wants, it gets. While NASA has to beg, plead and grovel for every crumb.

And if SpaceX, Blue Origin and the private sector become viable players in space, then NASA might be shut down or absorbed into Space Force.

With China, EU, Japan, India, etc getting involved in space exploration, it's inevitable that space is going to be a new frontier of militarization and privatization. Space Force and the private sector are natural players in this new arena. Not sure where NASA fits in this picture.

Wasn't the "legislative" council filled with appointees and served as an advisory role to the british governor ruling over hong kong? Where is the democracy there. Also china played around with "local" elections, doesn't mean they were/are a democracy.

As for your last point, so what? Nobody is claiming china is a democracy. But neither was britain. And it's laughable that "chinese pressure" is why britain didn't allow democracy in hong kong. It's a convenient excuse that doesn't change the facts.

Britain never allowed democracy in hong kong. And it's simply absurd to claim hong kong was "free" when it was a conquered colony of britain. It's one of the ironies of history. Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.

And in the final years, the "LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils" may have been elected but they were powerless advisors. The ruler of hong kong, the governor, who had actual power was not elected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten

Does that guy look like an "elected" and "rightful" leader of hong kong? A guy who wasn't born in hong kong and who didn't grow up in hong kong ruled hong kong by appointment, not election. It's absurd that anyone would claim hong kong was free or democratic at any point under british rule. Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.

The truth of the matter is hong kong was never a democracy and probably will never be one. Neither the colonizing brits or the chinese were interested in hong kong being a democracy.

How juices ( orange, grape, etc ) became a "healthy" is just as ridiculous as cigarettes being "healthy" at one point. Misleading ads via industry and regulator collusion is why we have terrible diets and health issues as a nation.

Sure a glass of orange juice may have "health" benefits like vitamin C or may be good for your heart, but only if we ignore the globs of sugar in it. The liquor industry has to get better PR people. They could be selling vodka and orange juice screwdrivers as a health drink.

It's the power of industry advertising and media. I bet most people today still think fruit juices are healthy and even encourage their children to drink "healthy" juices.

So in addition to all your personal ( family/friends/etc ) information, it'll have your spending history as well? So the only thing it needs is your medical history, income/job and government information. Though I suppose facebook could get a decent sense of your medical and income/work history using your spending habits and location and personal information.

At this rate, I wouldn't be too shocked if facebook bought ancestry or other dna company to truly challenge Alphabet and Apple as the world's largest spy agency.

If information is power, aren't we giving too much of it to a handful of companies?

Previously free? Hong Kong was a colony of britain which ruled with an iron fist and disallowed voting or democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong was never free nor democratic until it became part of China. Lots of brits love to pretend they brought democracy everywhere, but they didn't. Hong kong became a "democracy" and "free" after the brits got kicked out. The brits never let their colonies become democracies because britain was never really a democracy. Britain is a constitutional monarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Also, the fact that china is an authoritarian communist state shows that they aren't pretending to be "naturally unified". If they were "naturally unified", they wouldn't be so authoritarian in the first place.

EU didn't reduce anything. The just shifted a significant part of their emissions to china. Just like they shifted a ton of their plastic and garbage to china.

Most of china's emissions, pollution, environment damage has been to manufacture goods for EU and the US. Europe and the US are responsible for most of the pollution and emissions. It's the price for a high standard of living in a consumer economy. It's why chinese cities and rivers are polluted and why american and european cities and rivers are clean.

But going forward, as china shifts from a manufacturing to a consumer economy, they are going to be responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions themselves. And the manufacturing will shift to poorer/cheaper ASEAN countries or India and eventually africa. What happens after that, I haven't a clue. The global economic system has been to exploit cheaper labor. What happens when the last cheap labor source has been exploited?

If the chinese want to live like an american or a european, then the environment is going to suffer. Then India, ASEAN and africa would want to live like the chinese. Then the environment is going to suffer even more.

It's a hard sell to get the west to lower our standard of living. It's an even harder sell to tell the developing world to accept their lower standard of living.

Chimps have been shown to use tools and pass on the knowledge to their offspring.

https://phys.org/news/2016-10-wild-chimpanzee-mothers-young-...

I didn't say the US is the most censored country. I just said we have to deal with censorship here too.

Once again, you harp on censorship. I'm against it too. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about? I don't like censorship in the US but that doesn't mean I'm going to support the chinese government over the US government. For some strange reason, you seem to believe that just because people don't like their own government, they'll support foreign governments. That's not how life works. Every citizen in every country has gripes against their government, but that doesn't mean they would welcome foreign intervention in their own country.

And if the chinese people don't like their government then let them deal with it. Not sure who you are or what your agenda is that you think "we could help". Who are "we" that we have to interfere in other countries?

I'm american. I complain about the government, the establishment press and censorship all the time. What are you? You seem to claim to be american but want to "help" the chinese people overthrow their government. And for someone who claims to be american, you seem to claim to know how the chinese think and want. I suspect chinese people know what chinese people think and want. It's as strange as a chinese person saying they know what americans think and want. How would they know?

The "US" didn't lose. Nixon lost because he went up against the establishment powers who backed the NYTimes. So the "US" won.

The supreme court isn't an "independent judiciary". They are part of the power structure. The supreme court is a political court filled with political appointees. It's why appointments to the supreme court are political fiascos.

Somehow I don't think assange is going to get the same treatment as the nytimes since he doesn't have the backing of political or media bigshots that the nytimes does.

Assange is the enemy of both the republican and democratic parties. He is the enemy of the nytimes, wapo and all establishment media. Assange will get no more a fair trial in the US than a ugyhur would get in a chinese court.

Just like the Pentagon Papers ruling was a sure thing long before Nixon decided to go after the NYTimes. Assange's fate is sealed.

The high percentage of NYT on the internet and especially social media is due to the NYT spending the last few years bullying social media platforms into giving it special treatment.

They aren't playing a "game". They are using their power as the establishment media to force tech companies to serve nytimes' ( and the elite's ) interests.

As the nytimes and other "authoritative" sources get special treatment online, it's going to crush local news and smaller news.

Funny how a few years ago, it was local news and smaller news upstarts ( vice, vox, huffpo, etc ) dominating online and "authoritative" sources struggling to compete. Why compete when you can change the rules to favor yourself. The NYT isn't playing a strong grassroots/AstroTurf/social media game. They tried for the past 15 years and they failed. So they decided to change the rules in their favor. Why compete when you can cheat?

Also, it was pressure from the NYT and other authoritative sources that forced reddit to start censoring. It was NYT and other authoritative sources that forced twitter to censor criticism of privileged journalists. The push for censorship and control online has been spearheaded by the elitists at the "authoritative" source companies.

Really? Censorship? And here in the US, people are trying to circumvent censorship too. So what? Doesn't mean we are going to side with china over the US. Also, there have been articles of china's demise for decades now. If you enjoy cringe, look up gordon chang and read some of his stuff.

But I agree with you about nobody wanting to be kept under anyone's heel. Do you know any chinese history? Do you know whose heel's they think they've been under for 200 years? The west's heel. Nationalism and economic growth is how the chinese government maintains power and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

As for the "concentration camps", I'm guessing the support depends on how it is framed. If the chinese government frames it as punishing separatist terrorists, I'm betting it will have as much support as japanese internment had in the US.

Also, the authoritarian communist party is their government whether you like it or not. Considering the economic growth that china has experienced, I'm betting the party and the government has enormous support amongst the population. And in any confrontation with a foreign government, the people almost always rally around their government - authoritarian or not.

Finally, "some" in china might want their government to "bend to the sanctions", but I'm guessing the vast majority of chinese don't. Also, historically, governments tend to fall when they appear weak, especially in relation to a foreign power. Also, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that there are "some" in the US who think we should "bend to their sanctions".

If you think that chinese people are going to side with a foreign government against their own ( authoritarian or not ), then you really don't know history or human nature.

It's not just the UK. The US, China, Russia, EU, New Zealand, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

The first thing you see after a terrorism incident is a controlled government+media propaganda campaign. They all use the same mindless talking points.

The second thing the government+media does is advocate for stealing your rights and more surveillance.

Someone does something bad, everyone else gets punished. It's true of "free" societies or authoritarian societies. Same tactics. Same terminologies. It's for our benefit and it's to keep us safe. Big brother loves us after all and knows best.

You can't sanction major economies without hurting yourself. It's why sanctions are used on nations with weak economies. Systematically important economies like the US, EU, China, Japan, etc are "unsanctionable".

Sanctioning china for "values" is as absurd as china sanctioning the US for "values". How would everyone react to china sanctioning the US or Europe for invading much of the middle east and north africa. Everyone would laugh.

Also, sanctions are acts of war at best and war crimes at worst. Economic sanctions exist to starve and hurt the population to punish the government. By any objective measure, it is a war crime and crime against humanity. "Luckily", rules and laws don't apply those with the greatest weapons.

Also, I highly doubt most of china's people would side with the US against their own government. No more than we'd side with China over the US government. That's not how people work. Especially if foreign government are attacking your own government.

Either we go to war with them or we decide to live with them. China has 1.4 billion people. The idea that we'd pressure them to act a certain way is ludicrous. More than anything, it'd probably have the opposite effect.

"International" sanctions by whom? Most of china's pollution is manufacturing for the west.

The biggest polluters ( in total and per capita ) in the world today are still europe and the US.

Almost all the pollution and environmental destruction the past 200 years were by europe and the US. Should there be "international" sanctions on us?

There ain't no saints this world. And those who claim to be saints are the worst villains.

American is a nationality, it is not an ethnicity. There is no "ethnic american" due to historic reason.

You are half-korean, so what is your other half? White? So you are half korean and half white.

You wouldn't say you are 100% korean and 100% white. That would be ridiculous right? Your ethnic history and composition can't add up to 200%. Even if you claimed to be 100% korean or 100% white, neither white nor korean people would consider you to be 100% white or korean.

That's my point. There is nationality and ethnicity. Those are two different things. A chinese person could move to germany and become a german citizen or national. But nobody would consider him an ethnic german.

The climate has always been changing. That's the problem. We have been in a "long trend" global warming period for at least 20,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Glacial_Maximum

Much of the world was under ice 20K years ago. And the earth has generally warmed since then and melted much of the ice ( with occasional refreezes ).

And the "consensus" that human activity is responsible is utter nonsense. Feel free to research where the "consensus" came from. Also, whenever "science" relies on "consensus", you have to start wondering because real science doesn't rely on consensus - it relies on hypothesis and experimentation. The speed of light isn't derived from "consensus" but rather experiments. Science isn't politics, people don't vote for what the facts of science are.

You talk of 30 years of consensus. Do you know what the consensus was before the consensus on global warming? We had 30 years of consensus on global cooling. And before then we had decades of consensus of malthusian collapse. And before then consensus on social darwinism. Strange how all these "consensus" driven science has been debunked as pseudoscientific nonsense.

We are in many millenia long global warming period. This trend started long before humans started using oil. Thinking humans are responsible for global warming is like thinking humans are responsible for the rise and decline of tides because we drink water.

If you claim that she is all japanese, then aren't you denying her african-american roots?

She is half japanese because half of her family and genetic history is from japan. The other half is from her african american father. Isn't it more bigoted to deny that half of her comes from her african american father?

Also, there is a difference between ethnicity and nationality. She may be a full japanese national, but she is not a full ethnic japanese.

Just like charlize theron could be a south african national, but you wouldn't call her a black woman.

I agree with her that being a japanese national should have nothing to do with heredity or skin color, but heredity and skin color most definitely has something to do with the japanese ethnicity.

To claim otherwise is to claim there is no suching thing as a japanese ethnicity and it destroys any sense of human diversity that we all pretend to love while trying to actively destroy human diversity.

Fans of volatility must love QCOM. Jumps on the favorable apple ruling a few weeks ago and a few weeks later falls on this ruling.

Vox is the left's version of infowars or breitbart. Why vox is allowed here but their polar opposites are not is beyond me.

Vox and "good journalism" are not words that belong together. Vox is like most "news" today - pure biased agenda. Hopefully, in a few years time, a recession washes away all the trash rotting in the media space today.

IQ is a valid measure of a certain kind of intelligence. And it most certainly correlates with salary and success at an individual and a national level.

The higher your IQ, the greater the odds of you making more money. The higher the collective IQ of a nation or group, the greater the odds of that nation or group being successful or wealthy.

https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html

If you look at the list of successful and wealthy countries and the list of national iqs, they tend to correlate fairly well. Barring war or some external impediment, the nations with the highest iqs tend to be wealthier and the lower iqs tend to be poorer.

What do you think "conservative fund" is? It is a fund of bonds. What do you think pensions are?

There is nothing more "conservative" in investing than bonds ( particularly treasury bonds ).

Nobody "plants" a bond and links it to a pension. A pension buys bonds, stocks, etfs, etc which hopefully grows in value or pays healthy interest.

The problem is if the pension doesn't do as well as expected or the ratio of workers to retirees gets too skewed and they can't meet their defined payouts.

There have been efforts to identify and locate "war criminals" of one side. No effort has been made to identify, locate and charge war criminals of the other side ( which has far more war criminals if we are being honest ).