But if you compare google trends you will find that the crossover point of react vs jQuery was somewhere around 2018.
In other terms, jQuery usage was much more widespread but it is not used for new projects anymore.
The trends of Google search doesn't imply anything by itself, just that less people search Google for jQuery than React. Which isn't entirely surprising in my view - people use search engines to learn about something they're unfamiliar with. That doesn't necessarily correlate with increased usage. I've searched for React (although not on Google) but never used it.
It wouldn't be too much work to understand a bit more about the comparative usage. Looking at recent commits of projects on GitHub would be a good start, but also skewed towards open source projects which doesn't represent all actual usage of course.
Another way would be to look through historic changes to websites to see if there's any changes to the source. It'd be a bit complicated because content changes don't necessarily mean anyone is touching jQuery or React pieces.
This also ignores any sort of private usage, which you won't get any reliable data on, and may represent a significant amount of actual usage.
At the end of the day, there's only so much accurate data available to make accurate conclusions about usage of software libraries that don't phone home. The best data available, as far as I'm concerned, is what I posted earlier - and it's still not perfect and doesn't support any claims other than what the data shows.
As a side note, I don't have any dog in this race. I do think it's interesting to get a better understanding of what pieces of software are being used, by whom, in what amount, etc. but it's difficult.
No, you see the trends. You see that people have been looking less and less for jQuery and more and more for React.
But React hasn't reached the height of jQuery at its peak.
I would not be surprised if you're right in your assertion of what's used more for new projects. I still don't think the evidence you provided is enough to be so certain.
If I want to look up documentation for jQuery, I don't google the term "jquery" to find their docs. I just go straight to the docs directly. For a lot of situations, people's IDEs do enough work to not google something.
But that wouldn't still explain why searches for the term has decreased.
Besides, people in general do look up to the online documentation or links to the documentation from stack overflow.
Burrito works very well in my experience. I've used it for distributing an implementation of breakout in Elixir with OpenGL and Metal rendering backends as a binary. Pretty neat!
For what it's worth, there does not exist a "standard internet browser," assuming that means an application that adheres to all relevant web standards. No piece of software exists (at least not publicly) that even adheres to the entirety of any single relevant web standard (e.g. HTML, CSS, ECMAScript, etc.), as far as I know.
Maybe for a few small things like JSON, I suppose, but not for any of the major standards. And not just as in they implement a superset of the standards - every browser implements a distinct set of each standard that is neither a subset nor a superset.
I'm still not a fan of Chrome nor the effect it has on the web.
The standard so far is to respect existing standards still in use, peoples effort and work done already - but not to outsource bug fixing costs by forcing any of that to be redone or lost.
And we're ok with murdering dozens of people that might maybe have some kind of drugs on them? In peacetime? Without evidence? Outside of our own territory/water?
We're lucky Venezuela hasn't attacked us back yet.
And even if they were smuggling drugs, what if there were children on board? Do they deserve to die because of the crimes of their parents? What if they kidnapped someone and forced them to pilot the boat? Does that person deserve to die?
Imagine the US instead pulling the ship over and shooting every person, regardless of age or guilt, in the head—and then leaving. This is no different.
"Today's defensive action we have taken demonstrates the first step to discourage these unmarked foreign terrorist attacks against our civilians. It is our duty to protect our people, which we will continue to do against the rising numbers of offensive boats assaulting us."
I imagine sooner or later, they will stop our black ops boats from shooting people.
Dictators, like Maduro (and wannabe dictators), are notoriously coward. They won't risk their life against an enemy that will certainly bomb them from afar, but they would happily risk their whole country if that kept them safe.
Hell, even Trump wouldn't be that bold if he didn't know Venezuela has no will, or means, of putting him at risk.
According to his Wikipedia page, his downfall was the loss of the capital island of the Falkland islands. He was a true military dictator, abuses and all, but he might have understood that losing the Malvinas would be the end of his regime.
In that case, going against UK in an unwinnable war was a way to preserve his regime, as long as no bombings were made targeting him, so he could still protect his life. UK is not as ruthless in war as, say, USA or Israel, IMO that was a calculated risk to prolong the end.
Your doubt in US intelligence and military capability shows. Venezuela attacking US assets would result in swift, almost instantaneous elimination of the threat.
The speed boats hauling ass in international waters are known smugglers on known routes using customized craft only drug smugglers use.
Policy of vaporizing these boats with weapons is both a) fairly effortless target practice for our military and b) puts major financial strain on that drug cartel operation.
Yes, I doubt. The US intelligence has invented intelligence plenty of times in the past, and I absolutely do not trust that particular shadow branch of ICE.
Even if what they say is true, destroying boats with people on them without proof is wild.
The intel is correct, as fentanyl is currently considered an extreme top priority threat to eliminate by the government (due to this being on ongoing operation, information given will be limited.) If this were some false flag or CIA op they'd just stage the boats getting blown up rather than destroy random innocent boaters. There's enough chain of command between the missile and the brass that this action would be executed correctly and with precision.
I'm really surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the (effective) nationalization of US Steel, so thank you for bringing it up. It's not only that he gets to pick board members, he gets final say on basically any decisions the company makes.
It's not only not unheard of, this just happened with US Steel in June. The president currently has essentially full control over the board and veto rights to just about any decision that the company makes, which effectively nationalizes it.
I don't understand how this would work. If the government created some entity to handle processing payments (or whatever), I assume it would be a publicly funded non-profit, since there is precedent for that. How much funding does it get? Where does that money come from? How does it compete with the existing massively powerful corporations? What incentives does the government entity have to compete? What happens if it goes bankrupt or is purchased? What happens to whatever capital was used to fund it?
It just seems like the government entity would need to actively engage with seeking profits or just existing to artificially lower costs. I don't think the majority of people would want the government to have a for-profit arm that exists to compete with businesses, and I don't think corporations would just play nice.
I'd say that USPS is the closest example of this, and it's a pretty good example of how things can go wrong as well. The active attack against the postal service to try to privatize it is terrible. It will do nothing but continue to isolate power to the ultra wealthy and make people's lives worse. For-profit corporations and the government just have (or ought to have) fundamentally different incentives to exist.
I'd be curious to know of any examples of this working well. I don't mean to be so antagonistic, I just am really struggling to understand how this could work in any way.
These are all fantastic and interesting questions and are exactly the same questions you would face if you expropriated the property of the businesses my parent proposed privatizing.
The issue is not how complicated and difficult such an endeavor is (and you rightly identify it as such).
The issue is, if we're going to do this heavy lifting anyway, might we do it in a way that doesn't involve theft ?
> The issue is, if we're going to do this heavy lifting anyway, might we do it in a way that doesn't involve theft ?
Expropriation usually involves paying the owners so it isn't theft, its just the government buying out the stocks just like a private corporation would. Are you saying Elon musk stole twitter? That is the same thing.
Anyway, here since this is shared between countries its better to just regulate what these processors can do, like the EU does when they regulate how large payment processing fees can be etc. Since its used for international trade no single country can own it.
> Ultra-processed foods are operationally distinguishable from processed foods by the presence of food substances of no culinary use (varieties of sugars such as fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, 'fruit juice concentrates', invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose and lactose; modified starches; modified oils such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils; and protein sources such as hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein and 'mechanically separated meat') or of additives with cosmetic functions (flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, emulsifying salts, sweeteners, thickeners and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling and glazing agents) in their list of ingredients.
They have a different definition of "no culinary use" than I do!
Earlier in the definition it uses the more conservative phrase "no or rare culinary use," which I think is more accurate. The point is just to attempt to categorize foods by processing levels in a way the public can understand.
I am curious what items in the list differ for you. When's the last time you grabbed your isolated fructose and maltodextrin to season your steak?
The way I think of it is if I were to cook a chicken breast or bake a loaf of bread and then write down the ingredients, they'd be chicken, oil, salt, pepper; or flour, water, yeast, salt. Now go look at the ingredients of a chicken breast (raw, marinated, or cooked) and a loaf of bread in the grocery store and note the differences between the ingredient list. If the ingredient list for an item from the store includes things a household wouldn't have at home, like fructose or maltodextrin, that item would be considered ultra processed.
I'll note that I don't eat as healthy as I should, people should do what they want, and it's possible to still be unhealthy while avoiding ultra processed foods.
Thanks for linking that. Their rubric for ultra-processed is easy enough to grok that folks could use this at a grocery store. We're on a kick to remove "parameters" from tasks right now, so this definition is clearer than thoughts like "stick to the outside of the store."
This is venturing off-topic, but can you expand on "eliminating tasks." Is eliminating a task like setting up auto bill pay, or getting rid of items that I don't want to clean?
