Am experimenting on the threads right now with “reverse nesting.” The effect will show up mainly on busy threads, and I’m still looking at different possibilities for more advanced formatting: For now, I don’t think the impact will be major, visually or practically, since it just means that, when you reach “level 10,” threads will start indenting in the reverse direction. As noted briefly in a prior comment thread, I recently figured out how to “break” the WordPress built-in maximum thread depth of “10.” Actually, I didn’t break anything at all: I’ve applied a perfectly legitimate if rarely exploited “filter” via a WordPress plug-in. Without going into too much detail, what the plug-in1 will initially allow for the WordPress user who installs and activates it is what we’ve had at this site since April, a comment thread at whatever “maximum depth” that continues to supply “reply links” on every comment, allowing commenters to reply in place rather than scroll up to the top of a sub-thread. I’ve only just begun experimenting with another set of possibilities that opening up the max-depth and creating some new CSS classes also make possible. For now, all that I’ve implemented here is reversal of nesting once max-depth has been reached, along with some graphical signaling. Before: After: So: Not a radical change. Saves a little space; may help marginally with a frequently reported bit of “time-traveling” confusion, but won’t eliminate it. Because we read English left to right, other reversals in formatting (comments snaking back in the other direction in an exact mirror reverse pattern, for example) would be visually confusing. I’ll still be exploring some other possibilities – and seeing if someone else comes up with a slicker variation – or can go to status quo ante if we decide that it’s better.
Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.
[C]limate scientists have a strange kind of faith: We will find a way to forestall radical warming, they say, because we must.
It is not easy to know how much to be reassured by that bleak certainty, and how much to wonder whether it is another form of delusion; for global warming to work as parable, of course, someone needs to survive to tell the story. The scientists know that to even meet the Paris goals, by 2050, carbon emissions from energy and industry, which are still rising, will have to fall by half each decade; emissions from land use (deforestation, cow farts, etc.) will have to zero out; and we will need to have invented technologies to extract, annually, twice as much carbon from the atmosphere as the entire planet’s plants now do. Nevertheless, by and large, the scientists have an enormous confidence in the ingenuity of humans — a confidence perhaps bolstered by their appreciation for climate change, which is, after all, a human invention, too. They point to the Apollo project, the hole in the ozone we patched in the 1980s, the passing of the fear of mutually assured destruction. Now we’ve found a way to engineer our own doomsday, and surely we will find a way to engineer our way out of it, one way or another. The planet is not used to being provoked like this, and climate systems designed to give feedback over centuries or millennia prevent us — even those who may be watching closely — from fully imagining the damage done already to the planet. But when we do truly see the world we’ve made, they say, we will also find a way to make it livable. For them, the alternative is simply unimaginable.
They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow's meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day. They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia's efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.
This, right here. This is where they choked. The American people had damned close to an absolute right to the information their government already had. The most fundamental act of citizenship is the right to cast an informed vote. The idea that the Obama administration withheld the fact that the Russians were ratfcking the election in order to help elect a vulgar talking yam is a terrible condemnation of the whole No Drama Obama philosophy. Would Donald Trump have raised hell if the White House released what it knew? Of course, he would have. But, as it was, the American people went to vote with only about half of the information they needed to assess his candidacy. This was a terrible decision.
Changing views of U.S. presidents over past decade and a halfAs Pew Research Center’s global surveys from George W. Bush’s presidency illustrated, many of Bush’s key foreign policies were unpopular, and by the time he left office Bush was viewed negatively in most of the countries we polled. His successor, Obama, generally received more positive ratings throughout his White House tenure.Today, in many countries, ratings for President Trump look very similar to those for Bush at the end of his term. This pattern is especially clear in Western Europe. In the UK, France, Germany and Spain, the low levels of confidence in Trump are very similar to the poor ratings for Bush in 2008.
U.S. Grant, Artistic Genius… June 26, 2015 "Grant arrived at his operational vision through perceptual speed and a 'gift of historic imagination,' that enabled him to 'take in at a glance the whole field of war, to form a correct opinion of every suggested and possible...campaign, their logical order and sequence, their relative value, and the interdependence of one upon the other.'"