I've been looking for a community of exactly this! This website layout/feel scratches a really deep itch. Let's make a hand-crafted web of enthusiasts and bring back 1999 all by ourselves! :)
Oh wow, are in luck! These kinds of communities have been building up over the last few years (maybe decade or so?), and now they're quite prevalent. I was about to share a few links (like indieweb.org, fediring.net, etc.)...but, then remembered stumbling upon the following blogroll/link page that does a wonderful job of capturing some really good starting points: https://shellsharks.com/indieweb
Some of the sites on this "web ring" (amazing!) definitely have Yahoo chat like applets and GIF animations that remind me of Flash. I miss Flash (kind of).
The problem with library apps isn't really the app. It's trivially easy to spin up a database with all the necessary fields. The real problem with library apps (or systems) is having to actually manage/index/code/scan the books, which is a pain.
Most books are in x39.50 catalogs, I have koha at home, using the British Library, Library of Congress, National Libraries of Scotland and France, and Oxford, it finds 90% of my books, barcode scan a shelf, import, add missing books
I got a barcode scanner and wrote a script to look them up in Open Library. Most of my books are found, but I don't have much weird/old stuff without barcodes. I found the process of scanning quite enjoyable tbh.
While this advice is good, the article is discussing HSV (herpes simplex virus), not HPV (human papilloma virus), which have quite different symptoms and epidemiology. There are, as yet, no approved HSV vaccines.
Second part of the PSA, one should keep prophylactic antiviral medication on hand incase you get exposed to someone with HSV. With 60% of the population positive for HSV, everyone should have an antiviral on hand. acyclovir, famciclovir and valaciclovir
HSV-targeting antivirals like acyclovir lower the chances of transmission when taken regularly by an infected individual. They do nothing if taken by those not carrying the virus. Keeping them on hand accomplishes nothing.
From the page you link:
> If you have genital herpes, you will probably be somewhat less likely to infect your partner if you use antiviral medication for prevention. The medications used for this purpose include acyclovir, famciclovir and valaciclovir. They must be taken every day over a long period of time, though. Using them as a creme or ointment is not suitable.
So it's been a while since I had an HSV scare, but from my research at the time you definitely want to start antivirals as soon as possible after symptoms start(assuming you know since it doesn't always cause symptoms). You want to reduce the viral load and let your body catch up which limits the spread and reduces severity of future breakouts.
You have to look past the stated intention. It's quite clear by logical deduction that it cannot be the stated purpose.
If the policy is intended to bring back US manufacturing, it would not be haphazardly implemented where the rates/industries/countries affected change by the hour. The best example are auto tariffs and steel/aluminum tariffs, which are going to absolutely destroy US auto manufacturing (where do we think the steel and aluminum used in cars are coming from?). An actual "reshoring" policy would be (1) targeted and (2) scheduled well in advance. So it obviously isn't that.
It also can't be part of a drug policy, since whatever Trump is saying about Canada is clearly false (Canada accounts for less than 1% of illicit fentanyl trade and is a net _importer_ of illegal drugs and guns _from_ the US), thus no policy can really impact this trade.
It also clearly can't be part of an energy policy, since US refineries are designed to accept a huge amount of Canadian and South American heavy crude (very little of which is produced in the US), so the oil tariffs can't possibly "onshore" more production of heavy crude.
The long-held theory by some that he's wrecking the economy for insider trading also doesn't make sense, because his favoured allies like Musk are losing tons of money right now, and an "insider trading" strategy would be much more regularly spaced rather than changing by-the-hour.
That leaves, by deduction, only a few possibilities:
* Trump really is intentionally wrecking the economy, for known or unknown reasons:
* He's wrecking the economy by instruction from a foreign agent (e.g. Putin - certainly indirect evidence exists)
* He's wrecking the economy because his donors told him to (e.g. Musk, other billionaires - unlikely because why would they want that? They would rather have the stock market go straight up, right?)
* He's wrecking the economy so that his "friends" can trade on the market with insider information (see above - seems unlikely based on the pattern)
* He's wrecking the economy so that his "friends" can buy things cheaply (would have been plausible but for the widespread collateral damage he's causing)
* Trump actually genuinely believes in tariffs (he's a product of the 80s after all)
* Trump actually genuinely hates Mexico, Canada, Europe, and China (seems plausible based on his personality and that of his political base)
* Trump really has no idea what he's doing (judge for yourself)
Yes but at least the nature of the problem is one of getting people informed and in agreement and not some kind of economic miracle or unhinged reconquista.
100%. I would say, even on the UI/UX side - Microsoft(!) has done a way better job on Edge (even though it's Chromium), with lots of new features on tab grouping, split screen browsing, note taking, syncing, and app integrations. Love it or hate it, at least they are doing some new features.
If tariffs work at all (which is doubtful), they're supposed to be part of an overarching plan with a long-term strategy in coordination with industry so that they can actually invest in creating new manufacturing. It certainly isn't going to work when tariffs are going on-off-on-off-25%-200%-10%-off-on-sometimes-off-on again. How in the world is _anyone_, American or otherwise, supposed to plan around this?
The US is the world's largest domestic economy. Trade with all nations around the world is 24% of the USA's GDP. You could shut it all down and the country would probably enter a mild recession while the rest of the world would face complete economic collapse. For example, 67% of Canada's GDP is reliant on the United States in some way.
The US has an insane amount of leverage. Leaders in Canada, Europe, etc talk a big game but then ultimately talk to an economist and realize they have to come to the table. That's why these leaders keep announcing things and then walking them back.
Also, according to Peter Zeihan (I know) a significant part of that trade consists of the US's exporting the light sweet crude oil produced by fracking, which is easy to refine, and importing heavy sour crude oil, which the US has a comparative advantage in refining. Clearly, the US could switch to refining the crude oil produced in the US with very little disruption.
How does this account for the different classes of things that go into a GDP?
The US imports a lot of goods because we can't or don't want to make them here. Meanwhile, the bulk of US GDP is services done by knowledge workers...
I am certainly not an economist but it seems like it would be a hell of a lot harder for the United States to build a bunch of factories and learn how to run them compared to the effort other countries would have to go through to import knowledge workers to build their own local services.
24% of US GDP divided by US GDP is a larger number than 24% of US GDP divided by non-US GDP. Any changes to US foreign trade affect the US more than the rest of the world.
When we start talking about 24% of the GDP we gotta go more specific into what industries depend on to understand the impact. Agricultural industry as a whole (imports, local production, etc.) represents much less than 24% of USA's GDP but if it disappeared it would be cataclysmic for the nation.
And 24% of GDP is a whole fucking quarter of the whole economic production of the largest economy in the world, it's not a "mild recession"...
The current situation is the result of decades of free trade and reliability.
There will likely be a shift if the market forces pull in a different direction.
Not today right away but in the timescale of years.
GDP fell 29% during the Great Depression. 80% of the way to the Great Depression is not a "mild" recession!
I agree that it would be less severe for the US than for other countries. It's essentially saying, economically, "Do what I want or I'll kill you." It's a mafia-style negotiation. I despise it when others do it, and I despise that the US is doing it.
I don't understand this argument. Every negotiation between countries should end in "do what I want or I'll kill you". Yes, executing those threats is only possible if the country threatening destroys itself in the process, but countries certainly can destroy almost anyone they're negotiating with if they disregard the cost to their own citizens.
Now what has kept Europe stable was the US having a bigger economy, good intentions (as in the intention was to increase ALL trade, not just US' immediate advantage), an unbeatable army and a nuclear armed threat to fight. Perhaps ironically, this approach made the US the most powerful country in the world, when countries that directly pursued their own interests faded, or outright failed (most famously USSR).
This appears to be ending. And every country has politicians just salivating to do what Trump is (or appears to be) doing: getting themselves what they want at any cost to their own country's citizens. Sooner or later they'll come to power and ...
So how do you negotiate as a country, really? If the country you're negotiating isn't a psychotic aggressor at the moment ... the time will come when they are. Doesn't this make war the inevitable outcome?
Protectionism only works in combination with other measures. If you indiscriminately shield domestic enterprise from competition, you just get less competition and nothing else. Which is usually not enough.
This administration works on threats and chaos. Trump said Biden’s CHIPS act was “horrible, horrible” and all he had to do was threaten Taiwanese chip companies instead. I can’t imagine anyone with any power in this admin organizing something strategically. It’s all ego and vibes.
> I feel like every time I look at JavaScript it’s different .
So much truth in this. It's amazing that JS has managed to survive (even thrive!) in spite of the constant fundamental backwards-breaking changes every few cycles. Maybe that speaks to the lack of web based alternatives than anything else.
> [JavaScript's] constant fundamental backwards-breaking changes
wat
TC-39 literally has "Don't break the Web" as an explicit goal.
You are conflating "JavaScript" with something else (possibly some popular packages written in JS, for example—by people who have no control or say over the standard, usually, and with dubious taste to begin with).
By all means, avoid those packages and tastemakers. JS is still JS and still works despite their whims.
> You are conflating "JavaScript" with something else (possibly some popular packages written in JS, for example—by people who have no control or say over the standard, usually, and with dubious taste to begin with).
