Server side image maps predate javascript. They were in early versions of Mosaic.
Client side image maps and the script element were (AFAICT) both introduced in Netscape 2.
Even when scripting was introduced, you didn't necessarily have the ability to move elements around freely on the page. I think (but I'm not certain) that it wasn't until Netscape 4 era that you had enough layout primitives to implement the multi-layer positioning approach to custom clickable areas.
But only square hit targets then (until clip paths much later). Image maps supported polygons and circles. And position absolute is still a few years after image maps.
This seems like a much more interesting question to me.
Telling other people's children what to do is easy and basically doesn't have any downside to being wrong. With your own children things are a bit different.
So: what are people here with school age children telling their own kids about the future? If their kids ask, what kind of careers would they encourage them to pursue, assuming they have the skills and interest?
When I was last in the Bay Area, maybe about a decade ago the bookshops were full of titles like "Python for Preschoolers" (I exaggerate, but only slightly). Clearly at the time a lot of people working in tech thought that cultivating an interest in programming was going to be the path to being a successful (by some metric) adult. Is that still the case?
"learn to code because it will get you a good career" perhaps, but "learn to code at at least a high school level, because it will give you a very good mental model for how computers do things" is still very useful.
Or maybe generalized to "get good at problem solving." I've found building software systems has a lot of parallels to working on physical things such as carpentry/DIY and working on small engines. The concepts of breaking down a problem into a bunch of smaller problems, and identifying what can be independently tested/built remain the same.
the problem solving aspect is great too, but I mean specifically "this is what it means for a computer to know something, and this is what it means for it to do something" expressed in terms of data stored in memory, and algorithms that read to and write from that memory, and "this is how computers think" in terms of control flow and if tests, is a form of literacy that everyone should at least be exposed to.
I also went to a couple of his (fantastic) undergraduate courses, and have a huge amount of respect for him.
That said, I think it's worth mentioning that Climate Change Without the Hot Air has aged pretty badly, and I'd be reluctant to recommend it to people who don't already have the background to understand what's aged well and what hasn't.
The high level approach of making high level numerical estimates makes sense, but it dismisses solar energy in about a page due to assumed high costs. It turns out that even if you're David Mackay you can still be caught out by exponentials :) I notice now that the version you link has some inline updates pointing out how off the assumptions in this section were, but it seems to me that's not enough; you probably need to redo the entire analysis based on what we know today rather than trying to make purely local adjustments.
On the other hand the point at biofuels are even more inefficient, and therefore a dead end even before you consider broader environmental impacts, are well made and something that is sadly not yet widely reflected in policy.
> biofuels are even more inefficient, and therefore a dead end
Only if energy density doesn't matter. But it really does, though. Battery powered electric trucking? Dead end. Battery powered aviation? Dead end. Battery powered shipping? Dead end.
[edit] Maybe there's some sustainable way to convert solar energy into sufficiently energy dense fuels that isn't biological, but so far it seems like seed oils or algae are probably the least bad?
> However natural ice cream can be, it's still a buttload of fats and sugars
My default base for homemade ice cream is a custard with 50g sugar for 6 egg yolks and 500g of milk/cream.
I'm not claiming it's a health food, but in terms of pure sugar content homemade ice cream is pretty low compared to most other things you might make as dessert.
Sorbet is very different; that is usually something close to a 1:1 ratio of sugar and water.
It's not that writing _is_ thinking, but (effective) writing _requires_ thinking. It forces you to take a collection of lose and incoherent thoughts and reify them into an argument that can hold its own weight.
The art of essay writing allows an author to ascertain how well they understand a topic and work out the flaws just by trying to put it into words. Paul Graham speaks about this.
We can't draw conclusions from that study because it's been retracted on the basis that data has been faked.
On the other hand there are other similar studies that reach similar conclusions, and specifically try to control for aerodynamics e.g. [1] which says
> The weak positive relationship between vehicle registration year and splat rate suggests that newer vehicles are more efficient at sampling insects than older vehicles.
i.e. they saw more insects on newer cars compared to older ones in the same time period.
In general ecology studies aren't like lab physics, you can't control every possible confounding variable; the systems are too complicated and studies ex-situ have their own limitations. But refusing to engage with the data we do have because it's not perfect isn't going to help you make better decisions, and doesn't represent some moral high ground.
Good, now if we could get a few hundred more, every year, with registered reports, we might be able to conclude something.
How does one even peer review a single datum, published as a paper? I guess in this case, there was actually something to catch, and it still almost made it through.
I didn't mean we shouldn't engage with data at all. However there are so many possible confounding factors in this type of measurement that we should "take it with a lot of salt."
> 1. Why focus on Swifts as opposed to any other species in decline? They state that they are "iconic", so maybe that's the answer? Are they more "iconic" than any other specifies in Scotland?
They are a red-listed species whose population in the UK has declined by two thirds in 30 years. They are also a species for which there's an obvious measure that can be taken to reverse one of the changes which we know has happened over that time (improved building standards reducing the availability of nesting spaces).
If we can't take simple steps to protect swifts I don't think there's much chance that we'll protect anything. Conservation wise, this is really low hanging fruit.
> 2. Why are these bricks the best solution? Why not take that money that would be spent on bricks and instead preserve land, or just build them dedicated houses elsewhere?
Swifts are extremely site-loyal. You can't just hope that they will move elsewhere. Before buildings they nested in caves and tree cavities. Caves in particular don't move from year to year, so as a result the birds have a strong preference to return to the exact same location where they themselves were born and are slow to colonize other places.
Also your suggestions sound extremely expensive compared to this plan. Swift bricks cost like 30GBP retail. Yes, that's a lot more than the normal house brick they replace, but it's trivial compared to the other costs of building a house.
> 3. Why does this need to be done via government mandate versus voluntarily asking people to build Swift housing in existing buildings or land?
That's more or less the current situation in England, and perhaps unsurprisingly it's extremely rare for developers to actually install swift bricks. Indeed it's relatively uncommon for developers to actually follow through on their existing legally mandated ecological commitments [1].
Making something mandatory everywhere is also cheaper than making it only required in certain places: it eliminates all the bureaucracy around deciding whether this or that development is in the right area, and makes it extremely easy to follow and enforce the rules.
Now it is possible that the lack of nest sites isn't the dominant factor in the decline of swifts. For example it could also be related to the decline in flying insects, or changing weather patterns induced by climate change. We aren't really sure [2], however from that study: "it would be precautionary for conservation efforts to continue to focus on ensuring that safe and productive nesting sites are in sufficient supply", and we also know that the swift bricks will be used by many other bird species as well as swifts.
I think what really stands out about this, is that having it installed as a pre-made brick is very cost-effective.
But this cost-effective route isn't readily available to most people, as most people don't build homes. Developers build lots, and then sell finished homes. So you need to entice developers. And historically, "the stick" is the only enticement developers remotely pay attention to.
"If you want a swift brick, install one yourself" is much easier said than done - you're talking about removing an existing brick, replacing it, hoping you don't damage the course or the cavity, probably voiding any warranty on a new home, etc. It's certainly not a £35 retrofit.
If you have specific sites that aren't working, please let us know and we can investigate and try to fix them.
The usual reporting channels are using https://webcompat.com or the "Report Broken Site" tool in the Firefox menu. Of course I"m also happy to take bug reports here if you (or anyone else) have them.
I think if prediction 1 is true (that it becomes cheap to clone existing software in a way that doesn't violate copyright law), the response will not be purely technical (moving to thin clients, or otherwise trying to technically restrict the access surface to make reverse engineering harder). Instead I'd predict that companies look to the law to replace the protections that they previously got from copyright.
Obvious possibilities include:
* More use of software patents, since these apply to underlying ideas, rather than specific implementations.
* Stronger DMCA-like laws which prohibit breaking technical provisions designed to prevent reverse engineering.
Similarly, if the people predicting that humans are going to be required to take ultimate responsibility for the behaviour of software are correct, then it clearly won't be possible for that to be any random human. Instead you'll need legally recognised credentials to be allowed to ship software, similar to the way that doctors or engineers work today.
Of course these specific predictions might be wrong. I think it's fair to say that nobody really knows what might have changed in a year, or where the technical capabilities will end up. But I see a lot of discussions and opinions that assume zero feedback from the broader social context in which the tech exists, which seems like they're likely missing a big part of the picture.
Your time-average power budget for things that run on phones is about 0.5W (batteries are about 10Wh and should last at least a day). That's about three orders of magnitude lower than a the GPUs running in datacenters.
Even if battery technology improves you can't have a phone running hot, so there are strong physical limits on the total power budget.
More or less the same applies to laptops, although there you get maybe an additional order of magnitude.
Client side image maps and the script element were (AFAICT) both introduced in Netscape 2.
Even when scripting was introduced, you didn't necessarily have the ability to move elements around freely on the page. I think (but I'm not certain) that it wasn't until Netscape 4 era that you had enough layout primitives to implement the multi-layer positioning approach to custom clickable areas.