mediumdeviation

The template being inline is a bug, not a feature in my opinion. You can actually write arbitrary templates into HTML using <script type='text/template'> (or really any type other than 'javascript'), and with a simple function get ~90% of the power of template strings in languages such as ES6 or Python. Writing your templates into JS like that is plain ugly and unmaintainable.

The FTSE 250, which is more representative of domestic companies instead of large multinationals[1] is still down more than 7%. https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXFTSE:MCX

[1]: http://moneyweek.com/ftse-100-v-ftse-250-why-have-they-diver...

It's useful for highlighting how useless these poll results actually are for policy making, because people have a propensity to hold opinions on things they have absolutely no knowledge of.

> Just expand it as part of the nutrition label.

The size of the nutritional label is not infinite. The number of potential labels is. More importantly, by labeling GMO, you're simultaneously implying that there may be something unsafe about them, and distracting from far more important information, like allergens and sugar content.

> I don't think it'd place any sort of unhealthy burden on the industries to write "This food may contain genetically modified organisms"

Fruits and vegetables can be contaminated, for instance if they are grown or stored next to each others. For labeling purposes guidelines are set with some leeway within safe boundaries. Trying to do the same for GMO highlights the silliness of the exercise, since there are no such boundaries, because they are as safe to eat as their non-GMO counterparts.

Then there's processed foods - tracing which of the dozens of ingredients are non-GMO would be non-trivial. It is possible, of course, but why force companies to waste money for something that is of no health consequence?

And finally, there's the issue of GMO entering the food chain. It is at least possible to trace this for livestock, if you have a complete history of everything that they've ever been fed, but what about animals caught in the wild like fishes?

I'd love to have more transparency and information about the food on my plate - I want my fruits grown in areas that are not under water stress, and my vegetables grown sustainably, but let's not waste time and money trying to label things that don't need labeling in the first place.

Wait, are you Peter Molyneux the game designer of Fable fame, or do you just happen to have the same name?

It seems you're correct. Specifically, disabling this rule from the inspector instantly fixes the performance issue.

  .widewrapper.main {
    box-shadow: inset 1px 3px 1px -2px #ababab;
  }

Actually, checking if a font is available does not require canvas (you can simply inject a piece of text into the page with a specific font stack set and check its width). Rather, what canvas is used for is to obtain the sub-pixel anti-aliasing of a given piece of text, which is different between browsers and OS even when the same font is present.

> A 301 redirect from www.longbets.org/601 to a different URL containing that text would also fulfill those [winning] conditions.

The bet (and the referenced article) is about the availability of the resources at the end of those URLs - the URL itself is just a reference, or a pointer if you will to a resource.

> Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>?

Because trifecta of retina (hi-dpi) displays, responsive design (use the same code for both mobile and desktop) and miserly bandwidth caps, (especially on mobile networks), means that traditional <img> tags won't do it any more.

<picture> is designed to help with this - and I'm pleasantly surprised to find that it has landed in a surprising number of browsers http://caniuse.com/#feat= picture - but you'll still need a polyfill, which is if course JavaScript.

Pages with a lot of images also use lazy loading to reduce bandwidth usage even further.

Of course a <noscript> should be included, but it's getting harder and harder to make the claim that it is economical to support people without JS.

What you're suggesting won't work. The problem is that a lot of pages require their resources to be loaded in a specific order. The C in CSS stands for cascading, and means that rules that are loaded later override earlier ones (if selector specificity match). The same goes for JS since later scripts might depend on the framework or libraries loaded in earlier, unless the script has the async attribute. And then there are the content which are loaded by the CSS and JS themselves, which in most modern web apps make up the majority of the content.

I would think you're too quick to dismiss the number of philosophers of religion, humanists and naturalists, many of whom are experts in the 'field' of religion, as you call it.

That's funny, because in 2014 the BBC was admonished by independent reviewers for giving too much airtime to climate change deniers under their 'too rigid' impartiality guidelines [1].

From the Telegraph [2]

> The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies. Andrew Montford, who runs the Bishop Hill climate sceptic blog, former children’s television presenter Johnny Ball and Bob Carter, a retired Australian geologist, are among the other climate sceptics that have appeared on the BBC.

I think I agree with the BBC's own comedian's take on this, which is to give each side time proportional to the amount of support they have from experts in the field. In other words, for every ten minutes of airtime for climate experts on climate change caused by humans, we can have 18 seconds, or 3% of climate skeptics speaking.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/0...

[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/B...

Are you sure making things wider actually makes it easier to read? Very long lines have make it hard for your eyes to track the start of the next line when you've reached the end of one. This is backed up by solid research, and is the main reason why books, magazines and a lot of websites have the width that they do.

It's a reference to Steve Job's infamous "You're holding it wrong" response[1] to complaints of iPhone 4's signal failing when held in a certain manner.

[1]: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/apple-responds-over-iphon...

This is... I can't even. The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous.

> How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims?

Yes. Yes to all of the questions you asked. Yes we do learn history and critical thinking in school. I know Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum. I know of the PAP's sordid history with the Barisan Sosialis. I don't trust the Straits Times, and frequently look for alternative viewpoints online. There is a large and vibrant blogging scene here, and netizens are more frequently than not critical of the government.

> Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people?

Yes, and there are not many. People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples.

Singapore is not without flaws - gay rights, a misguided focus on the nuclear family and an almost cult-like focus on drugs as social vice. The lack of representation in politics, and increasingly xenophobic towards immigration. The poor work-life balance, income inequality, and lack of support for the poorest. There's a lot of things that are wrong with Singapore - you don't have to make shit up.

This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today.

You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.

Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that follows the same system, like Australia and Canada. None of those countries are run by nepotistic dynasties. I don't think the lack of a term limit necessarily leads to more corruption.

My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.

Your first sentence is valid. I wished the opposition was better, so that we have real representation. The current opposition parties are fragmented, and worse, seem very reactionary. Unfortunately with Singapore's aging population it is unlikely any party will try to appeal to voters in my demography.

The second sentence however, is unfounded and uncalled for. The Lee's may be many things - harsh, autocratic even - but their integrity has never been called into question. Given their track record (the current PM Lee Hsien Long is a Senior Wrangler - "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain") one could very well imagine them being the CEO of a large multinational, which would be far more profitable than running a country and bending its policy to line their pocket.

Your statement would have been true for every election other than the last. In the last election the opposition parties fielded candidates in all but one of the constituencies. The 70% popular vote in what is the most hotly contested election in recent history after the dismal 60% the ruling party got in the previous election is widely seen as an affirmation of the party's mandate.

Roy Ngerng? He wasn't posting 'questions' to his blog - he was posting cringeworthy conspiracy theories that were provably false. Granted I don't think he should have been sued - that just legitimizes him and made him out to be a martyr, but he's most certainly guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

If you don't trust the official media, even independent blogs whom don't typically side with the government don't report on him favorably - eg. http://mothership.sg/2015/07/this-was-how-senior-counsel-dav...

> I have never heard a single Singaporean show strong confidence or trust in their government

In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was voted in with a 70% popular vote.

> and the lack of free speech is not insignificant to many

It is not insignificant to many, but it's also not a major issue to most, again not at least if you look at the elections. I should mention at this point that I don't look upon the ruling party favorably. But these are the facts.

> but most can't say too much about it publicly because of the punishment imposed.

[citation needed]. The government doesn't take too kindly to certain types of speech, but critiques of its policies are generally not suppressed, and certainly not to the degree which you make it out to be (people fearing punishment for expression opinion out loud? Really?)

I'm going to say that I don't have too much doubts about the government's motives, but rather its competency - the government, like most governments doesn't have the best track records in terms of its IT infrastructure, and a breech into a system that collects that much data will be incredibly damaging.

One of the first thing you learn in microeconomics 101 is that demand forms a curve - there will always be people who are extracting more value (and thus willing to pay more) for something, and people who don't (and thus don't buy it). Neither of those groups matter - the only ones that do are the people at the margin - if lose a less than proportional amount of customers by charging more, then you still come out on top. This is also what the quote is alluding to.

This is an extremely popular narrative that seems to pop up every time a Stack Exchange post geta onto the HN or proggit front page.

The problem with this narrative is that it is almost never substantiated. So instead, let me posit an alternative hypothesis, as someone who has gotten his hands dirty on the various Meta sites:

The reason most people feel that SE has a moderation problem is because the moderation process on SE is significantly more transparent than almost any sites out there. And because of this transparency, people find it easier to point blame at these users.

The transparency part I hope is obvious - when a post get moderated on other sites, the full edit history and name of the moderators involved are almost never revealed. The close reasons are in general decided upon by the users themselves. Individual moderation decisions can be contested and debated on the Meta sites, and there are checks on almost every level.

In other words, the moderation process is already fairer than most other sites, where the moderation process is essentially a black box with no means of appeal. But people don't like it because the content which elsewhere would have been swept quietly under the rug is still visible and indexable.

Oh, I agree that this is really cool in terms of aesthetics.

I'm pointing out that the grandparent's comment about this being minimalistic, and comparing it to real weather apps as being absurd. If you're building a toy project aimed solely at programmers on desktop, there's a lot of things you don't have to care about. Some of those things are exactly the 'bloat' the grandparent has been complaining about.

ASCII art is not scalable when you mix it with text like on this site since scaling the art will also make the text unreadably small.

Screen readers depends on the semantics as defined in HTML to recognize what to read. In this case when you use text to define the 'layout' of the page, screen readers loses the ability to differentiate between content and presentation. This is also one of the reasons why using tables for layout is a bad idea.

I would go out on a limb and say yes. Any website designed with screen reader accessibility in mind would work with Lynx, which is a more capable browser than screen readers.

On Android the browser renders the page at full width, making the icon and text unreadablely small. You can zoom in, but that shouldn't be necessary in the first place if the site was responsive.

Bootstrap's screens reader only classes are somewhat of a hack, and does the opposite of what you're suggesting anyway (aria-hidden is the proper way to go, but as you said that will mean adding a ridiculous amount of markup to the page), while images support screen readers natively via the alt attribute - no messy markup needed.

Sorry, I meant cruft - autocorrect didn't recognize the word and corrected it to 'craft'.

And the same control extends to users on the Web at the very least. Userstyles/scripts and extensions can modify websites, giving users the ultimate control over website content.

My point was in response to the grandparent's statement that most modern apps get in the way of the user - those exact same things are also crucial to, for instance support screen readers and mobile users.

Try looking at the source of the page. There's no way in hell anyone would call that "just" the data necessary to convey the information.

The site is also unusable on mobile, because ASCII art unlike proper semantic HTML is not easily rescalable by the browser. And it's inaccessible by users relying on screen readers, ironically because of all the ASCII cruft.

Actually, zero profit is guaranteed only if the market exhibits perfect competition or monopolistic competition.

Those that are not (which the wireline business should be in, given its very high barrier to entry and low number of competitors) do not go to zero in the long run because of the market power they control and tacit collusion with other players in the market. The 'razor thin margin' likely exists not because of competition, but because of inefficiency in the way the business is run.