I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.
Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
11–20 of 258 posts
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#12Watchout, this site is a disgrace... maxes out my CPU, it's just text for fuck sake what are they doing bitcoin mining in javascript?
Tracked it down to a fucking "typingAnimationFrame" function, woot... lets melt peoples computers because we can't write efficient basic animations.
What's running the function? Something on page or some ad in an iframe?
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#13Somewhat related, the WC-135 Constant Phoenix is one cool looking plane.
It's a Boeing 707, essentially.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tracked it down to a fucking "typingAnimationFrame" function, woot... lets melt peoples computers because we can't write efficient basic animations.
Maybe the site developer isn't very good. Why don't you send them an email telling them how they can fix it?
It's one thing to be inexperienced. It's entirely another to be this incompetent.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#15Watchout, this site is a disgrace... maxes out my CPU, it's just text for fuck sake what are they doing bitcoin mining in javascript?
Tracked it down to a fucking "typingAnimationFrame" function, woot... lets melt peoples computers because we can't write efficient basic animations.
Are you sure about that? When I profile it in chrome, about 50% of the time is spent in the garbage collector and "(program)". Randomly pausing the debugger most hits the ad code, which I think is what is causing the problem. It seems to be constantly loading and displaying the same ad over and over again, or something dumb along those lines.
The irony is that there are only two small, mostly static adverts on the entire friggin page.
Anyway, debugging this webpage was much more interesting than the article itself :)
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#16Watchout, this site is a disgrace... maxes out my CPU, it's just text for fuck sake what are they doing bitcoin mining in javascript?
Heh, was playing Overwatch with this tab open, frames dropped by 50%. Wondered what the hell it was.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#17Somewhat related, the WC-135 Constant Phoenix is one cool looking plane.
That's because it's mostly wing. It dates from the Dash-80 era of slim, pure jets and low-bypass engines. Today's high-bypass engines are big shrouded fans with a jet engine at the center to spin them. Fuel economy is much better, but the engines look bloated.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the site developer isn't very good. Why don't you send them an email telling them how they can fix it?
It's one thing to be inexperienced. It's entirely another to be this incompetent.
Where is the line to be drawn? Should the line remain there for everyone even if people vary in endowment in natural ability, opportunity for experience, and access to education?
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#19The obvious political slant is obvious.
> There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing under President Trump, but this is largely speculation mixed with hyperbole.
> The first detection of the isotope came during the second week of January, via an air sampling station located in Svanhovd.
Both of the above quotes are from the article.
Trump didn't assume office until 1/20/17. The THIRD week of January. If this was US testing of nuclear arms, it came under the direction & instruction of Obama, not Trump.
Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?
#20I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.
> I do have to complement the authors of this article.
Why? for blatantly lying and misrepresenting facts such as Trump was president when these "tests" took place?
> It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise.
It does the exact opposite: it portends to lay out facts, but instead it lies about which president under which these "tests" occurred, so everything else they state is suspect.