I am curious if such thing happened, how would Chrome sustain itself as a company. I imagine Google would pay a hefty contract to it and keep their control, or some other actor would do and change the actors in the problem, but keeping it.
Fortunately, they chickened out when they realized that forcing Google to divest Chrome would result in Chrome being owned by Perplexity (an Indian AI company). Or perhaps somebody even worse, like Elon Musk.
Or you can literally just manipulate your SVG through the DOM in an external JS script... I still have no idea what the original motivation behind scripts in SVGs was.
Yes, that was a large part of the thrust back in the day. Even if it wasn't officially a goal of the SVG working group, there was a lack of an open standards-based alternative to what Flash was able to do, and the developers of the SVG standard saw that adding animation/tweening wouldn't take much given what browsers were already becoming capable of.
a little bit of a, a little bit of b. to displace flash if you don't like it, SVG has to have flash-like features to appeal to those who do use it and steal them away.
While SVG is a web technology, for the longest time you had to install SVG support as a browser plug-in. I remember installing Adobe SVG viewer around 2000. It was used for interactive visualizations.
I'm don't remember precisely but I don't think you could script it from the DOM, I don't see how that could work if it's a plugin.
It's been a very long time since I studied it, so you're likely right... but I thought that existentialism was the problem statement (life has no inherent meaning so we bring our own) and that absurdism and nihilism were both responses to it?
My understanding has always been that Absurdism says that while the search for meaning is absurd we should search anyhow if we feel like it (our happy friend Sisyphus). Whereas Nihilism's answer was more along the lines of Bukowski's "Don't Try." They both recognize that Sisyphus's job is pointless, but the absurdists suggest we keep pushing the boulder anyhow.
My own understanding is: all three of existentialism, nihilism and absurdism are responses to the same question (that of the meaning of life). All three agree on the fact that there is no inherent, "natural" meaning.
Nihilism gives you nothing more. Absurdism claims you must embrace this lack of meaning and thrive in spite of it. Existentialism claims you can create your own.
Camus thought Existentialism was "cheating" and trying to deny the correct conclusion that life is meaningless. Also, he diskliked Sartre a lot.
> I vehemently insist on the right of my fellow humans to smoke.
And I vehemently insist on the right of my fellow humans to live a healthy life. My Grandpa died of an horrific lung disease directly linked to his decades of smoking. I was robbed of decades of his company, all so a few fucks could make a quick buck.
I sincerely believe that selling tobacco to someone can and should be compared to murder. No one would argue that banning murder is illeberal: the right to a long, safe and healthy life is the best of all negative freedoms. Smoking is a small positive freedom we would all fare much bettter without.
Everyone already knows that Trump himself was a pedophile. Yet he's still president, and no one's seriously challenging him on this. When he said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters", for once I believed him. His utter shamelessness gives him total immunity over any puny attempt at blackmail.
Is it really harder to believe that support from Israel is more complex than simple blackmail? There are a lot of pro-Israel people in and around power, Trump is far from alone on this. The Military Industrial Complex, Oligarchs, Corporations, they all win from the wars waged by Israel and the US in the Middle East.
Yeah, murder is illegal too, but still the number of murders is non-zero. Maybe we should just legalize it?
Sarcasm aside, if the goal is to reduce consumption, criminalization does work. Repression, though, does come with its own can of worm (an euphemism, yes). It's up to the citizenry and its representatives to decide if the trade-off is worth it.
At the cost of how many people's lives that get jailed for doing drugs/smoking and not hurting anyone?
Telling people what they cannot do in the privacy of their own homes is a massive invasion of pri... Ohh, well England is par for the course when it comes to that at this point.
How can you claim that just after speaking of Banana Republics? These clearly show that free markets alone are terrible for the vast majority of people.
You completely missed the issue. Météo-France already has tens of thousands of stations across the country, they're very obviously not basing their entire models off of one sensor in Paris CDG.
The degenerate idiots from Polymarket bet on this particular sensor. There's no law preventing people from betting on single sensors. And we can't make laws preventing people from acting on the world in all the diverse ways that can be exploited to cheat in prediction market.
We should just blanket ban this negative-value industry. We don't want people betting on forest fires and then starting them.
I would like to see France ban the tourist scammers before they worry about fools willingly making stupid polymarket bets on a single sensor. Also good luck banning polymarket, isn't that the one that trades using crypto?
reply