86 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. The official Svelte blog, on the contrary, ends up mind tricking the reader by showing only one side of the coin, sometimes through upfront false statements about web technologies and other libs
    1. So while Solid's JSX and might resemble React it by no means works like React and there should be no illusions that a JSX library will just work with Solid. Afterall, there are no JSX libraries, as they all work without JSX, only HyperScript or React ones.
    1. But presenting a library author as a "snake oil" merchant and those who show enthusiasm for that library as fools for falling "hook, line and sinker" for his lies is pretty insulting and not particularly constructive.
    2. from what I've seen the benchmarks you referenced in a previous article to demonstrate the speed of SolidJS show Svelte performing pretty well. From my perspective whether Rich Harris deliberately chose to present benchmarks that especially favoured Svelte is therefore a moot point
    3. Wait what? No runtime. How does that work? Well, obviously JavaScript executes at runtime, so was he saying he doesn't reuse any code? Well as it turns out the message here has changed. I looked and sure enough there was a runtime. Of course there was.
  2. Sep 2020
    1. Wildfires Will Become Worse Thanks To Decades-Old Liberal Policies, Says Fire Expert Who Predicted Uptick In Blazes

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

  3. Aug 2020
    1. I honestly don't know what you find unclear about this question. I think you initially misread. I edited out your title change because it wasn't what I'd intended and it misled others. I edited in two more sections to clarify. The last section makes it as clear as I can: A single question provokes 1 of 3 responses (not necessarily answers). To chose between them I need to understand acceptable scope of both question and answers. Yes this topic is a muddy one, that's why I'm asking! I want others to help me clarify the unclear!
  4. Jul 2020
  5. Jun 2020
    1. Asymptomatic spread of coronavirus is ‘very rare,’ WHO says

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

    1. Money is moved from one place to another without a paper trail.

      Only in the literal sense. There's still an electronic paper trail, silly.

  6. May 2020
    1. Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. self-updating (as it’s monitored remotely by our lawyers)

      They don't remotely monitor your policy, just the generic clauses within it.

  7. Mar 2020
    1. Most Google users will have a preferences cookie called ‘NID’ in their browsers. A browser sends this cookie with requests to Google’s sites. The NID cookie contains a unique ID Google uses to remember your preferences and other information, such as your preferred language (e.g. English), how many search results you wish to have shown per page (e.g. 10 or 20), and whether or not you wish to have Google’s SafeSearch filter turned on.

      They seem to claim (or hope that their description will make you think) that ‘NID’ is only used for storing preferences, but if you read further down, you see that it's also used for targeting.

      These should be separate cookies since they have separate purposes, and since under GPDR we have to get separate consent for each purpose of cookie.

  8. Nov 2019
    1. In a sense, the current behavior is the best behavior, because it never works, you will never get the impression that it does in React.
  9. Oct 2019
    1. A former union boss jailed over receiving a coal exploration licence from his friend, former NSW Labor minister Ian Macdonald, was an "entrepreneur" who found a "willing buyer" in the disgraced politician, a court has heard.

      This is a flawed proposition and both misleading and deceptive in relation to the subject matter, considering its prominence in a court media report of proceedings which largely centre on the propriety or otherwise of an approvals process.

      Using a market analogy mischaracterises the process involved in seeking and gaining approval for a proposal based on an innovative occupational health and safety concept.

      In this case, the Minister was the appropriate authority under the relevant NSW laws.

      And while Mr Maitland could indeed be described as a "entrepreneur", the phrase "willing buyer" taken literally in the context of the process to which he was constrained, could contaminate the reader's perception of the process as transactional or necessitating exchange of funds a conventional buyer and seller relationship.

      Based on evidence already tendered in open court, it's already known Mr Maitland sought both legal advice on the applicable process as well as guidance by officials and other representatives with whom he necessarily engaged.

      But the concept of finding a "willing buyer", taken literally at it's most extreme, could suggest Mr Maitland was presented with multiple approvals processes and to ultimately reach his goal, engaged in a market force-style comparative assessment of the conditions attached to each of these processes to ultimately decide on which approvals process to pursue.

      Plainly, this was not the case. Mr Maitland had sought advice on the process and proceeded accordingly.

      The only exception that could exist in relation to the availability of alternative processes could be a situation silimilar to the handling of unsolicited proposals by former Premier Barry O'Farrell over casino licenses which were not constrained by any of the regular transparency-related requirements including community engagement, notification or competitive tender.

      Again, this situation does not and could not apply to the process applicable to Mr Maitland's proposal.

      The misleading concepts introduced from the outset in this article also represent an aggravating feature of the injustice to which Mr Maitland has been subjected.

      To be found criminally culpable in a matter involving actions undertaken in an honest belief they were required in a process for which Mr Maitland both sought advice process and then at no stage was told anything that would suggest his understanding of the process was incorrect, contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice.

    1. 2 European Climate Declaration September 26, 2019There is noclimate emergency

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

  10. Sep 2019
    1. Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a little less).

      Biogeophysical feedbacks have different tipping points. Some are in the range of the 2ºC limit, while others would occur at higher temperature anomalies. For example, a critical transition in the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC) is not expected beyond 3ºC

  11. Aug 2019
  12. Jun 2019
    1. New Report Warns "High Likelihood Of Human Civilization Coming To An End" Within 30 Years

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

  13. May 2019
  14. Apr 2019
  15. Feb 2019
  16. Dec 2018
  17. Sep 2018
    1. Hurricane Florence is not climate change or global warming. It's just the weather.

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  18. Aug 2018
  19. Jun 2018
    1. Ross McKitrick: All those warming-climate predictions suddenly have a big, new problem

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  20. May 2018
    1. The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  21. Apr 2018
    1. Not all scientists agree on cause of Great Barrier Reef damage

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  22. Mar 2018
    1. Polar bears keep thriving even as global warming alarmists keep pretending they’re dying

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  23. Jan 2018
    1. Scientists Announce That The Great Barrier Reef is Officially “Terminal”

      Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. Heart-Wrenching Video Shows Starving Polar Bear on Iceless Land

      Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. Global Warming Study Canceled After Humiliating Discovery

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  24. Dec 2017
    1. STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  25. Nov 2017
    1. The three-degree world: the cities that will be drowned by global warming

      Overall scientific credibility: 'mixed', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. Climate change might be worse than thought after scientists find major mistake in water temperature readings

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  26. Oct 2017
  27. Sep 2017
    1. Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  28. Aug 2017
    1. Climate Change Isn’t the End of the World

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  29. Jul 2017
    1. DELINGPOLE: ‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  30. Jun 2017
    1. Trump should withdraw from Paris climate pact

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  31. May 2017
  32. Mar 2017
    1. Earth heading for 'mini ice age' within 15 years

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to the 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  33. Feb 2017
    1. Scientists: Here's What Really Causes Climate Change (And It Has Nothing To Do With Human Beings)

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to 4 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 7 climate scientists who evaluated this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and on ClimateFeedback.org

      This evaluation features contributions by MIT Prof. Kerry Emanuel (see annotations below) and by Wesleyan University Prof. Gary Yohe (see his comments on the article)

      karmour:

      The article contains numerous scientific errors, does not provide references for some of its key claims, and ignores much of the published literature on the subjects discussed. It appears that many details have been cherry-picked or misconstrued in service of making a political point.

      anonymous reviewer:

      The author tries to rebut the narrative "that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse". In doing so, he erects a straw-man, cherry-picks studies and misrepresents current climate science. Furthermore, the logic that since things are not 'worst-than-we-thought', we shouldn't take action and do the things we would do if things were simply 'bad', is lost on me…

      emvincent:

      The article is imprecise, for instance, about who the “doomsayers” and the “alarmists” are: since the core of the argumentation is about them, a definition of who they are and what they argue exactly cannot be avoided. It is also vague in its conclusion: “we need balance”, here again what exactly is meant by balance should be made clearer.

      jgdwyer:

      Tries and fails to make a convincing case for why humans need to worry about climate change less than they currently do.

      bmv:

      Although this author appears to have read parts of the IPCC report and carefully selected the facts which support his narrative, he presents information in a very misleading way, and some of his statements (e.g. "despite endless successions of climate summits, carbon emissions continue to rise") do not support his thesis that action on climate change is alarmist and unnecessary. His conclusion that "climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better" suggests a false equivalency between the indicators that are "worse" and those that are "better".

      drchavas:

      The author on multiple occasions presents blatantly inaccurate information and otherwise uses selective information to argue his point, which is highly misleading.

  34. Jan 2017
    1. Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  35. Dec 2016
    1. Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  36. Nov 2016
    1. The Phony War Against CO2

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. About Those Non-Disappearing Pacific Islands

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  37. Oct 2016
    1. Hillary Clinton Boards The Climate Crisis Train To Nowhere

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

      3 scientists have analyzed this article and conclude its title is misleading.

      Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. James Lovelock: ‘Before the end of this century, robots will have taken over’

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  38. Sep 2016
    1. Climate Exaggeration is Backfiring

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  39. Aug 2016
    1. ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

    1. forest fires

      Technically correct, in that drought due to lack of rainfall is linked to Indonesian forest fires in some El Nino years.[] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201608_heat/)

      The lead sentence for the paragraph implies a link between climate change and the following events, including Indonesian forest fires, which is not established. To the extent climate change might be affecting the frequency and intensity of El Nino events or rainfall patterns during El Nino events, it might then be playing a role, but that is not claimed in this article. For example, Dai (2012)[] (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/abs/nclimate1633.html) documents a decreasing observed precipitation trend in Indonesia, but Trenberth, Dai et al (2014) note that "it is probably not possible to determine reliable decadal and longer-term trends in drought without first accounting for the effects of ENSO and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation." [] (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2067.html). Trenberth, Dai et al (2014) also note that drought due to ENSO effects on precipitation may also be exacerbated by the effects of warming on evapotranspiration, which is an area of ongoing study.

  40. Jul 2016
  41. Apr 2016
    1. 7 Things You Need To Know About GMO Salmon

      Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Biotech Feedback's analysis

  42. Mar 2016
  43. Jan 2016
    1. The Climate Snow Job

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 10 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  44. Dec 2015
    1. Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  45. Nov 2015
  46. Sep 2015
    1. Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  47. Aug 2015
    1. How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists

      Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to the 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

      evaluation card

      Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

  48. May 2015
    1. Wisconsin GOP Passes Bill Banning Poor People From Buying Shellfish, Potatoes And Ketchup

      This headline is inaccurate. The bill prevents SNAP benefits from being used to buy shellfish, but people are still allowed to buy shellfish with non-SNAP money. The bill also prevents people from using more than a third of their SNAP benefits on food that's not on an approved list, but potatoes are on that list, so people can spend all their benefits on potatoes if they want. Ketchup is unapproved, so people can spend only a third of their SNAP benefits on ketchup.