It’s an Australian charity group that does a lot of cancer prevention and education activities. One part of it is having stores and lines of sun protection products like hats, swimming shirts and sunscreen.
Starlink connects you to the internet via a ground station in the country where you are registered, and the antenna will also only operate in an approved zone (depending on your country and account type). You cannot use it in China.
It’s still true because in order to be operating in a country Starlink has to get approval from the Gov and if the Gov requires Starlink to have to connect through a ground station then they’ll either comply or not operate in that country
They have a minor capability to do intra-constellation routing now but if they want to operate in China the authorities are going to demand all data be downlinked through Chinese downlink stations so they can do their monitoring.
I wasn't aware that China does this. I know India does too though, for this reason only Inmarsat is allowed there because they cooperate with the authorities (and I believe even that is subject to local licensing).
Though India doesn't have a great firewall so it's much less of an issue for foreigners visiting there.
I don't know specifically that they do but it makes sense they would and Musk has a lot of points where China can squeeze him if he tries to not comply and China takes their internet monitoring seriously so I can't see them not demanding it.
TLDR: the program prints a pseudorandom sequence of characters 205 and 206, which on Commodore 64 are graphics characters similar to / and \.
When repeated across multiple lines, it looks like an intricate random maze. But it is actually just a visual representation of whatever PRNG is used on the platform, with the default seed as set by the BASIC interpreter.
Looks like a great start. Using Rust and TOML configuration are good choices.
With a project like this where there are many (many) existing attempts to solve it, I think it helps to take a hard look at what exists today and design your solution to solve a specific problem you see.
Then you can pitch it that way to your first adopters too - something like “Basel, but with easier deps” or “CMake, but with config humans can understand”.
Thanks, that's great advice! I'll consider it. I've been meaning to update the readme for a while now, so this just gives me an excuse to do so. I think the most important thing to work on right now is compatibility. Obviously, people like OpenCV or Vulcan aren't going to switch, and so it should at least be easy for those who do to make the switch.
> As a reader, I don't want page authors to start hard coding sizes into these elements …
They mean h1 elements without a font-size specified in CSS (or style attribute) will be flagged as a warning. User agent styles can still override site styles if you want to set one.
> if I take some existing markup and blockquote it in some container, I'd expect the headings to shrink as they're now all sub-elements of some other section.
This logic only applied to the h1 element specifically, as it was an attempt to shoehorn some “clever” logic from the abandoned <h> tag proposed in a early draft of HTML5 (which was going to work the way you’d describe for headings at any level), on to the existing h1 element.
(Source: I used to follow the WHAT-WG mailing list closely during the HTML5 spec development process.)
These shouldn't be a warning. We're supposed to have graceful degradation without any requirement for CSS anywhere. Now the only "correct" way is a slew of media queries to set some designer's idea of the font for every possible viewport size. That is not how HTML is supposed to be rendered.
> Now the only "correct" way is a slew of media queries to set some designer's idea of the font for every possible viewport size.
Nested H1s was never semantically correct in the first place, at least for accessibility purposes.
You can do flexible sizes without media queries (eg, viewport size units + clamp). Designers generally understand the web pretty well these days.
I only see one situation where people might have depended on these styles, but it's a big one - anywhere that you output the plain HTML of a "rich text" component from a CMS or whatever. There, if the stakes are low, it might not have been a big deal to just let the browser do it and headings might look too big sometimes now.
A warning IS graceful degradation, an error or unexpected behaviour would be ungraceful. The channel that warnings come over is separate from the channel the content is being rendered in and it shows, for those that look at it, that the system is degraded and an action would need to be done to restore it to a non-degraded state.
This is not about graceful degradation. An HTML document without any CSS should never be in a degraded state. It should be perfectly usable and perfectly well accepted.
I agree; a HTML document without CSS should be perfectly usable and OK (and ideally CSS should never be required; if CSS is disabled it ought to still work OK, too).
However, if CSS specifies some things and omits others that are related to it (one example is specifying the font size for one heading level but not another one; another example is specifying the background colour without specifying the foreground colour or vice-versa), then it makes sense to be a warning.
I can't articulate it and I could very well be on the wrong vibe, but this feels like the bad practice of relying on the failure mode within a try/catch for normal functioning.
The key challenges called out are a) fuel, b) robust airframe, c) active guidance to handle varying conditions, d) funding for testing and robust components. The article goes into a good amount of detail on each.
The interview mentions the word "protocol" 26 times, but sadly no detail on what a successful social media protocol might look like, or how it could get adopted given where we are today.
What I believe we've witnessed, with the recent launch of many Twitter clones and subsequent lack of sustained traction, is that large social networks are _really hard_ to replicate, and therefore extremely valuable. So you're not going to see any of today's social media companies opening up their networks through open protocols. If anything, the opposite continues to happen, as networks shut down APIs (except for ads) and disable third party clients.
To me, the only solution is (sadly) a government mandate, and one that restores citizens' ownership of their social media profiles and networks through a requirement to publish open APIs for the data. Unfortunately, this seems very unlikely to ever happen. Technology companies today are so rich and powerful, they have lobbying teams which will ensure such regulation never passes (at least in the US, where it could have some impact).
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/