51–60 of 89 posts
I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…
EDIT: sorry, Moseley ; )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of this is actually not mobile friendly? I’d argue this is laid out pretty well compared to some websites that are “mobile friendly” but load poorly or make it impossible to scroll.
If you need to scroll the viewport left and right to read a line of text, that seems kind of unfriendly.
I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…
The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.
Though that rather invites the question of why browser defaults are so poor.
After so much time hearing about how SpaceX dumps rocket debris all over Boca Chica it's kind of amusing that they're also leaving trash on the moon. It would be cool if we sent people back to the moon one day and they took photos next to junk like this. Or whatever is left of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moon is a lifeless rock with nobody on it. That seems like a better place for garbage to go than the earth. And since it's going to impact the moon at 2.43km/sec, I don't think there will be much visible stuff remaining, just a crater and some bits of aluminum. Also what's the alternative? Moon missions don't have enough extra propellant to go back to earth and deorbit. They might have enough to move to a relativ…
Same rationale for dumping chemicals in the river. It's a river! It all just flows away! There's so much water, who could even notice?
I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…
It's nearly impossible to get overlapping text without css...
After so much time hearing about how SpaceX dumps rocket debris all over Boca Chica it's kind of amusing that they're also leaving trash on the moon. It would be cool if we sent people back to the moon one day and they took photos next to junk like this. Or whatever is left of it.
This "trash" could provide a lot of valuable metal and maybe other stuff, for future moon missions. I wouldn't really call it trash.
I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same rationale for dumping chemicals in the river. It's a river! It all just flows away! There's so much water, who could even notice?
Not really, rivers flow into oceans where there is life that is impacted by the chemicals, not to mention the life in the river itself. So its not the same rationale. Moon IS a lifeless rock. I agree with the parent, if there was an option between trashing the earth and moon, I would pick moon in a heartbeat.
It's why I think the idea of starting with the Moon as a jumping-off to Mars is illogical. Mars is much further but is a million times more hospitable in every other way, and has presumably much more to offer in term of unknown unknowns than the Moon. We only found out that Martian regolith is relatively water rich (about 2% water by volume) in 2013, which is kind of insane if you consider that the first probe successfully sent to Mars was in 1962.