edejong

I kind of like the ingenuity of the approach. Never occurred to me to use non-active content.

Sorry, I might initially have caused this mess, thinking browsers would fix it sooner than later.

I see it is fixed now. I thought up this work-around back in 2014, when NPAPI was phased out. Spotify and another large player came up with similar solutions.

I read extensive parts of the CORS specification and it is indeed teflon (and just as toxic as teflon as well). The spec is full of exceptions and leaves many choices to the browser vendors.

To truly understand CORS, you have to fundamentally understand 'the origin' as a security and execution context. Sharing means that content normally intended for another origin is shared with the initial origin.

Perhaps that is blatantly obvious and you are more confused by the myriad of headers, exceptions and lifetime. In that case, I propose to read more of the spec.

The reason the developers didn't use CORS is because active mixed content isn't allowed. You simply cannot call 'http://localhost' from a https domain. For a medical SaaS application which needed to communicate via USB I created a self-signed certificate during installation and added it to the trust store to be able to call active content on localhost. Previously, we used NPAPI (which, when used correctly was more secure than the current plugin architecture), but that got deprecated.

Ask yourself why many developers need this path. The reason is that creating plugins for various web-browsers is a very expensive ordeal, with Firefox and Chrome having a completely different ecosystem. Moreover, in my opinion the plugin ecosystem is less secure than having good engineers take the localhost path (with challenge-response token authentication and origin hostname validation, obviously).

Sarcasm? If not, I’d say Debian and Ubuntu still have a large market share and most Linux is still open source. Perhaps you mean Enterprise Linux?

Start writing ex commands. That way it’s append only.

Bonus points: paint it black on the other side with spray paint and use light markers.

Good (free) alternative, works across OSes and on iOS and Android, has browser integration and a support team:

Toggl.io

There does not need to be a 'quantity' of evidence. Merely that the evidence can be refuted (not taken at face value). A 'proof' is what I associate in popular media with scientific evidence. 'Think' is code-word for: hypothesizes. Especially when the weasel words 'may', 'might', 'could' appear.

W.r.t. qualifications I think the answer should be obvious. I am addressing (as a layman) the mode of communication as it appears in popular media, and try to distance myself from the contents of whatever is communicated.

> My fear is we're quite possibly terribly damaging the planetary ecosystem. That's pretty black and white to me.

Yes, that fear is on my mind as well. There is irrefutable evidence in coral bleaching and there are other globally occurring phenomenon. And because of that, we need to be extra careful on how we convince our fellow earthlings.

> > Most climate scientists are not on either end.

> If you are going to claim this, please back this up when you say it. Claims without references are useless.

Well, it depends on how you define 'the ends'. There are those who believe we are all going to die within a decade. There are those who reject all evidence. There are those who believe it is irreversible and those who think we are able to cope.

So, this is on the predicted effects of climate change and its extend. Most models are relatively accurate globally, but subcontinental predictions can still be way off (2-5 degrees either way).

In my opinion, the media goes either way: left wing brings us doom and gloom scenario's, while right wing paints a rosy picture. That should be a clear sign that we are not making progress. We should be finding common ground! I believe the viewership still has common ground, but the media is creating a Babylonian tower.

Then there is the whole discussion about what to do about it. People come up with all kinds of ideas, such as carbon tax (how to deal with CO_2 from imported products), solar panels (could be a real option, but requires heavy investing in infrastructure), biomass, political and diplomatic approaches, underground storage, etc.

And each of these approaches comes with another doom-and-gloom story, connected with these 'solutions'. Consider what it does for the non-scientific oriented population. Climate is now seen by many as a means to push products. Many switch to ignore mode.

Take this [1] article in National Geographic for example. It's all due to climate change! Not a word on bad forest management, bad water management, increased population density and more. It's outright duplicitous to not mention the other factors. And it's also sad, because the 'opponent camp' can now point at these articles and say: "You see! This is what they feed you!". Global warming is calculated to be around 24% accountable for these wild-fires.

> > However, there are many secondary and tertiary effects.

> These being...? Specifically?

Precipitation is still very difficult to model. Increased temperature means increased evaporation, increased cloud cover and increased precipitation. It depends on what kind of cloud cover is generated whether this will have a net cooling or heating effect.

Another factor is the mixing of salt and sweet water, which due to the melting of the polar ice has effects that, if I'm not mistaken, is not yet precisely modeled.

We can accept that we are putting ourselves at risk. However, I am sure we will come to the right conclusion faster if we let people make their own conclusions and not make this into a polarizing shouting match.

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/clima...

Wrt downvoting: I’ve seen some really trigger happy downvoting on other comments as well, even though the argument was cogent. It would be nice to reserve downvoting for clearly stupid comments.

I was attempting to make the point that status and money are only partly connected.

I intentionally leave my position on climate change out of the discussion, because it is irrelevant. Also, my qualifications on this topic, how little I might have, should not interfere with finding common grounds. However, if it helps, I do not have any ties with scientific research, pro, or contra groups wrt climate change.

The situation is painted black and white by popular media and social websites. There are, however, many shades of gray. Most climate scientists are not on either end. However, due to duplicitous media coverage the discussion is quickly polarizing.

The polarization is the bigger issue. For example, we can agree global warming is happening and we can agree this causes increasingly extreme weather conditions. However, there are many secondary and tertiary effects. These, alleviating or contributing to global warming, are not part of our climate models.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, we should acknowledge the limitations of our understanding and our scientific findings. The foundation (IPCC climate models) should be discussed. Where are they accurate? How can they be improved? Does it help us predict local climate change, so we can prepare migrations and structural changes?

Thanks for that question tickerticker. Upvoted you so you get extra status. Let’s see what lsanger might reply later?

Short answer, because I really have to get some sleep.

You assume people are incentivized by price, but people are incentivized by status. That's why they buy fake Rolexes and put themselves in extreme debt.

Connect CO_2 emissions with status.

It's a bit old research, and probably flawed, but at least some researchers tried to answer this question back in 2008: https://searchengineland.com/calculating-the-carbon-footprin...

Supermarkets already do this. They store it for much longer than several years.

There is complete accounting in the food chain. It is precisely known where your lettuce was grown, when and how it was transported, stored, frozen, thawed and placed in the supermarket. It is even known who's picking it up from the shelves and paying for it.

The only problem is: the general public knows nothing of this!

"Scientists are finding that as temperatures in the arctic rise, changes here may be contributing to extreme weather thousands of miles away."

keyword: may. This statement tells us nothing new. Everyone already knows that local changes in climate have global effects. That's why we have global climate models.

(cue: extreme forest fires, partly caused by mismanagement of forests)

"Temperatures are rising in the world, but the warming is strongest in the arctic."

Nothing new.

"Here the warming is twice as fast as the global average."

Interesting: we know that the polar jet has been slowing since the 60's, but the warming of the arctic seems to be equal to global warming in the first part of this graph. Also, very shoddy time-series analysis, imho.

"And that's causing the ice to vanish."

"...international group of researchers who've come North to see how it has been rapidly changing."

So here I really wonder. Why would you do that? We've got great sensor networks and satellite measurements.

"Without the ice, more water evaporates, contributing to more greenhouse gasses."

True, but locally. Increased cloud cover also has a net negative effect. It really depends on a complex interplay and requires a sophisticated simulation.

"Some scientists think this is supercharging extreme weather across the world."

This seems highly hypothetical. Why not make a factual claim, such as: "Scientists have proven this actively contributes to the number of extreme weather events."

"Call atmospheric scientist... who explains how the polar jet stream effected the US this past winter."

"There was a huge northward swing in the jet stream over the west coast, bringing lots of warm air over Alaska."

So, this is true, but the jet streams are not constant, and have never been. Connecting it with a slowing down of that stream is intentionally left to the viewer.

... news report ...

"Took a southward drive over the rockies and dipped way down into Florida."

... another news report, claiming that such events have happened in the past??? Wouldn't that debunk this line of thinking? ...

"At times 20 degrees above average, and warmer than NY city."

These local fluxes of temperature are normal in this region.

... more claims of the jet stream, causing problems. No scientific claims, however, just news reporting. ...

"Tokyo had its coldest day in 48 years." So what happened about 48 years ago?

"Some prominent climate researchers are skeptical."

Good for them. We'd better be.

"Scientists can't definitively say whether any one weather event was caused by the warming Arctic, conditions elsewhere, or by random chance."

So, this is one of two scientific claims. At this point I am wondering why I just watched 4 minutes of melting ice bergs.

"But Francis and others think the warming Arctic is loading the dice for extreme weather."

Think? What does that mean? They don't agree with the other scientists? Have they found proof?

"FRANCIS: We can confidently say that some amount of the increase in extreme weather that we're seeing, is because of climate change."

So... eh, what about the jet stream? The arctic? I agree with this statement, because... it is obviously true! When global temperatures rise, we obviously get more droughts and more extreme temperatures.

KINTICH: "One thing is for sure, extreme weather in North America is occurring more often."

And the relationship to the Arctic? The jet stream? Tell me more!

"Climate scientists have given this phenomenon a new name: cold arctic, warm continents."

But, this has always been the case! This does not automatically prove the opposite.

... summary ...

So my conclusion: nothing new has been said! The only true statement is that we cannot conclude anything yet.

Now, multiply these kind of videos by hundreds, and you might start to understand why certain people are getting tired. Stick to the facts! The facts are scary enough as they stand.

Where do I attack the legitimacy of science? Could you please quote me?

The phrase, 'scientists say...' is often connected to hypotheses scientists have, which are partly backed up by models or proof. Often popular media falls back to "Johnny said X" to dumb down the complex findings for their ignorant viewership.

The following statements show that there is a proof:

- <person> proved <statement> - <person> discovered <statement> - <person> found <statement> evidence

Too many times I've looked up scientific results based on 'X said Y', only to find that the effect was more marginal than claimed, or purely hypothetical based on other findings. This is not isolated to climate change, but all of popular science.

Please, if you down-vote, engage with my arguments. I am intentionally not picking sides, but pointing out flaws which I believe need to be fixed.

What would happen if we would publish each individual estimated CO_2 emissions of the past year? You'd be obliged to place it under your emails, on your Facebook and LinkedIn account and it'll be placed squarely on your WhatsApp photos. No way to hide it.

Published CO_2 emissions would include an estimation of the total CO_2 emissions estimates of the complete production flow of each product you buy, the distance you travel for work and all other energy consumption.

Would that incentivize people?

(for the purpose of this argument, assume we can actually make such an estimate)

This kind of rhetoric is fueling the opposite camp. It really doesn't matter which camp you are in: we should admit to the vagueness this video is full of: "some scientists believe...", "this scientist thinks...", "there is at least some influence of...".

It reemphasizes the climate sceptists standpoints. They (most) are not denying there is a problem, but claiming there is widespread misinformation and propaganda around this topic and a strong exaggeration of the scale of the problem.

We have a kernel of truth around climate change. Let us cherish the kernel, instead of watering it down by popular media and scientists trying to jump the bandwagon by making vaguely substantiated claims.

Money won over principles after all.

I wish I could automatically append your comment to each similar statement people tend to make nowadays.

I love that train of thought. Could be the basis for a sci-fi book.

We also do it to preserve our unique prestine environment providing higher-order evolution. And we do it to preserve our ideas, our discoveries and our memories.

Alright, after having done some research on effective, long-term measurement of air quality, I am here to give you some bad news.

Your sensors are going to break. Depending on the environment and the mode of operation of the sensor, you'll see between a one month and one year lifespan.

Why? Exactly because of the thing you want to measure: dust, oil particulates, water vapour and chemical reactions will quickly deteriorate the accuracy of the sensors. To properly protect them you will need at least a moisture trap and some kind of air pump to get a constant flow of air through your sensor. You most likely also want to filter out large particulates (if you're interested in sub 2.5 micrometer measurements).

That said, you can [1] get quite accurate readings from the sensors within their specified operation environment (sub 80% Relative Humidity).

[1] https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/2/41/pdf-vor

For me the Eureka moment with Common Lisp came when I read 'The Art of the Meta Object Protocol' (Kiczales) [1], which made me rethink OOP, the power of macro's and the power of Lisp.

Lisp is an extremely fundamental and deep language, but although it is conceptually interesting, I find it rather unpractical. A language needs some syntactic structure to help in pattern matching.

We read code more like a map than a book: scanning, skipping between files, functions and expressions. And, like a good map, it should guide our eyes: highways and byways are differently coloured and a quick glance tells us whether we are seeing a forest or a city. Code should be similar and due to the syntax of LISP, we have little to no guidance on what we are scanning, except by manually reading the code.

I don't think Lisp is the only language suffering from this. There are similar problems at the deeper end of the functional programming scene: we have to read map, flatMap, fold, apply, etc. in order to make sense of the code. We cannot 'scan' the code to understand its structure. It does not help that, for a syntax highlighter, these methods all get the same formatting.

The solution? Personally, I think we should seriously consider enhancing our editors to project our code based on the type-classes it participates in to enhance guidance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_the_Metaobject_Prot...

A carbon tax is probably the worst thing you can do.

First of all, it will seriously destabilise a large economy where democracy still plays an influential role. This will place more economic power at the hands of non-democratic nations, allowing them to produce more CO_2 at will.

Secondly, the taxed CO_2 will just circulate back to the government, to be spend again. On what? Due to the strong relationship of the dollar with oil, each dollar spend by the government will involve burning oil and producing CO_2.

Third, how will you check the CO_2 emissions of your products? How do you prevent fraud? How do you make sure the system is not gamed by shifting the CO_2 burden to other countries?

No, if you want to make a dent, vote for those who want to invest heavily in renewables R&D (solar, hydro, wind, thermal).