> Cross-site scripting (XSS) safe front-end frameworks like React are good because they prevent XSS. XSS is bad because it allows an attacker to take over your active web session and do horrible things
What? React is not "Cross-site scripting safe"
Many security controls do require more than a 2-3 sentence explanation. Trying to condense your response in such a way strips out any sort of nuance such as examples of how react can be susceptible to XSS. Security is a subset of engineering and security decisions often require a trade off. React does protect against some classes of attacks, but also exposes applications to new ones.
> In the US, 14.5% of men are 6ft or taller.
Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, 58% are 6ft or taller (4x increase)
3.9% of men are 6’2’’ or taller, among F500 CEOs, 30% are 6’2’’ or taller (7.6x increase)
10% of F500 companies are run by women as of 2023[1]. It's interesting the author assumed all F500 CEOs are men. I would also be interested on the source of height for the F500 CEOs. If it is self-reported it is possible that some of them aren't quite as tall as they say.
> If you increase the capacity of the road system however that's accomplished and more people use it that's a win.
This ignores the cost/benefit of constructing more car infrastructure in heavily urbanized areas and the cost of owning a car for transportation. It ceases to be an economic multiplier when you compare it to cheaper alternatives. You are also painting car infrastructure as some sort of panacea, but it costs households a lot of money (almost 1/5th of their total income[1]) to use a car for transportation.
Not only are cars expensive, but their expense is inversely correlated with income (poor people spend more money on cars). In the USA we spend much more on transportation than in EU countries[2]. From the standpoint of the average American family, car infrastructure is much costlier than the alternatives.
> More lanes helps because now more people are able to get where they want to go!
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but no one wants to get to the 5 or 6 lane highway. They are using the highway to get to smaller 1-2 lane surface roads and parking areas with limited capacity. Eventually you will hit a bottleneck in surface roads or parking that you cannot improve easily or cheaply. The larger highways only serve to get people to the bottlenecks in the system faster.
> How different would the situation be if the US midwest and south were on the hotter side of the scale, rather than the cooler one?
If the effect of global warming were felt equally in the US and that somehow caused the US to halt 100% of their emissions it would reduce global emissions by about 11% [1].
I don't understand how people make that point in 2023 still
China is the world's factory, 20% of the US imports come from there, of course your own country doesn't pollute much when you gutted half of your industries and relocated them in foreign countries.
They are uniquely bad in this regard, compared to their peers like India and other developing economies. It's clear that China does not care about climate change in the slightest.
> They are uniquely bad in this regard, compared to their peers like India and other developing economies.
Of course India is nowhere close to China, they basically don't exist in term of exports. These countries have almost nothing in common besides having a large population
Again it's easy to pollute less when you literally shut down all your industries. You can't ask for more and more growth, cheaper and cheaper prices and 0 pollution.
> China does not care about climate change in the slightest.
Not more or less than 99% of countries on this earth, including the US and most of Europe. If they did they'd have stopped their Chinese imports a long time ago, as well as most of their exports and massively reduced their energy usage (daily reminder than the average US household uses 4 times more energy than a German one)
For the US to halt emissions there would be policy in place to make sure emissions made somewhere else get appropriately priced, hence the effects of emissions reductions in the developed world impact everywhere else.
The main problem with global emissions is with developing countries who are increasing their emissions while at the same time taking up a greater share of global emissions than developed countries.
I have always struggled with just how difficult it is to retain long form text over HTML. Even if you block the ads, the hyperlinks and strange font choices can make it difficult.
The solution I figured out was to use a Kobo e-reader with Pocket. The integration with Firefox is actually quite seamless. You can basically just take a webpage, save it to pocket, and then sync it to your e-reader and read the article there. I have found this to be the best way to consume acoup's content.
You have a somewhat justifiable position, but you lost me when you started talking about social media posts. In your proposed rationing of "climate relief" it shouldn't be focused on people's thoughts. It should, instead, focus on specific actions people have taken or not taken that directly impact the client.
I could see something like a carbon credit for individuals based on their actions that impact the climate such as limiting their power use, not driving their car frequently, or not having pets. This type of rationing also has problems, though, as it starts to become effectively limiting things to wealthy people who can afford a lifestyle in which they can use a car less frequently or own an energy-efficient home for example.
I don't think there is a reasonable way of rationing climate relief in a morally justifiable way.
Aren't social media posts a large driver of actions? Weren't they used very intentionally to misinform people on this issue? I believe social media (along with traditional media) is a large part of why we ended up where we did, with a large number of people still claiming this issue is a hoax when it very clearly is not.
I assume there is some particular combination of factors at play here:
The US has a very advanced military and intelligence apparatus which operates globally.
The US has an enormous area that it operates in domestically (large areas of both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans).
The US also has a relatively open culture and emphasizes free speech.
When you look at all of these factors it seems that by having all of them it makes it a lot more likely for people to detect UAPs and then talk about them. The other thing that might be at play here is that, as an American, I have no idea what a credible news source would be from Botswana and it is unlikely to be in English even if I would consume it in the first place.
I would put my money on a junior enlisted / junior officer not paying attention when they type the email to book their hotel over a government conspiracy to generate a Casus Belli to invade Mali of all places.
What? React is not "Cross-site scripting safe"
Many security controls do require more than a 2-3 sentence explanation. Trying to condense your response in such a way strips out any sort of nuance such as examples of how react can be susceptible to XSS. Security is a subset of engineering and security decisions often require a trade off. React does protect against some classes of attacks, but also exposes applications to new ones.