Sure there are examples of websites using XSLT, but so far I've only seen the dozen or maybe two dozen, and it really looks like they are extremely rare. And I'm pretty sure the EU parliament et. al. will find someone to rework their page.
This really is just a storm in a waterglass. Nothing like the hundreds or tens of thousands of flash and java applet based web pages that went defunct when we deprecated those technologies.
Those had good rationale for deprecating that I would say don't apply in this instance. Flash and Java applets were closed, insecure plugins outside the web's open standards, so removing them made sense. XSLT is a W3C standard built into the web's data and presentation layer. Dropping it means weakening the open infrastructure rather than cleaning it up.
> This really is just a storm in a waterglass. Nothing like the hundreds or tens of thousands of flash and java applet based web pages that went defunct when we deprecated those technologies.
Sure, but Flash and Java were never standards-compliant parts of the web platform. As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that something has been removed from the web platform without any replacements—Mutation Events [0] come close, but Mutation Observers are a fairly close replacement, and it took 10 years for them to be fully deprecated and removed from browsers.
They are definitely rare. And I suspect that if you eliminate government web sites where usage of standards is encouraged, if not mandated, the sightings “in the wild” are very low. My guess would be less than 1% of sites use XSLT.
If there were that many, why do people only list the same handful again and again? And where are all the /operators/ of those websites complaining? Is it possible that installing an XSLT processor on the server is not as big a hassle as everyone pretends?
Again: this is nothing like Flash or Java applets (or even ActiveX). People were seriously considering Apple's decision to not support Flash on iPhone as a strategic blunder due to the number of sites using it. Your local news station probably had video or a stock market ticker using Flash. You didn't have to hunt for examples.
> If there were that many, why do people only list the same handful again and again? And where are all the /operators/ of those websites complaining?
I've spent the last several years making a website based on XML and XSLT. I complain about the XML/XSLT deprecation from browsers all the time. And the announcements in August that Google was exploring getting rid of XSLT in the browser (which, it turned out, wasn't exploratory at all, it was a performative action that led to a foregone conclusion) was so full of blowback that the discussion got locked and Google forged ahead anyway.
> Is it possible that installing an XSLT processor on the server is not as big a hassle as everyone pretends?
This presumes that everyone interested in making something with XML and XSLT has access to configure the web server it's hosted on. With support in the browser, I can throw some static files up just about anywhere and it'll Just Work(tm)
Running a script that interprets a different script to transform a document just complicates things. What do I do when the transform fails? I have to figure out how to debug both XSLT and JavaScript to figure out what broke.
I don't have any desire to learn JavaScript (or use someone else's script) just to do some basic templating.
What does one do when transform fails right now? You have to debug both XSLT and a binary you don't have the source for; debugging JavaScript seems like a step up, right?
I used to be able to load the local XML and XSLT files in a browser and try it. When the XSLT blew up, I'd get a big ASCII arrow pointing to the part that went 'bang'. It still only kind of works in FireFox
XML Parsing Error: mismatched tag. Expected: </item>.
Location: https://example.org/rss.xml
Line Number 71, Column 3:
</channel>
--^
Chrome shows a useless white void.
I enabled the nginx XSLT module on a local web server serve the files to myself that way. Now when it fails I can check the logs to see what instruction it failed on. It's a bad experience, and I'm not arguing otherwise, but it's just about the only workaround left.
It's a circular situation: nobody wants to use XSLT because the tools are bad and nobody wants to make better tools because XSLT usage is too low.
And a WiFi connection even though it goes 'through the air' is not an airgap.
The same for BT and any other kind of connectivity.
An airgap is only an airgap if you need physical access to a device to be able to import or export bits using a physical connection, and the location of the device is secured by physical barriers. Preferably a building that is secure against non-military wannabe intruders.
> firewall exception to get to the air gapped system
Any system accessible with a firewall exception is not "air-gapped" by definition.
A level below that is diode networks, which are not air-gapped but provide much stronger system isolation than anything that is accessible with a "firewall exception".
Far below either of these is vanilla network isolation, which is what you seem to be talking about.
Definitely! I've worked on the design of these types of systems, there is more subtlety to the security models than people assume. Some of the designs in the wild have what I would consider to be notable weaknesses.
The most interesting subset of these systems are high-assurance bi-directional data paths between independent peers that are quasi-realtime. Both parties are simultaneously worried about infiltration and exfiltration. While obviously a misnomer, many people still call them diodes...
The entire domain is fascinating and less developed than you would think.
And even if you do get it right, there is always that one guy that takes a USB stick and plugs it into your carefully air-gapped systems. And cell modems are everywhere now, and so small even an expert could still overlook one, especially if it is dormant most of the time.
Yes, it is underfunded for sure. I have been underwhelmed by what academia has managed to produce, funding aside. It is a solvable problem but you have to give the money to the people that can solve it in an operational context, which rarely seems to happen.
It is a genuinely fun project for someone with sufficiently sophisticated skill but I suspect there is relatively little money in it, which colors the opportunity and outcomes.
The absence of clear commercial opportunity gives the domain a weird dynamic.
Probably. We keep watching all kind of stuff after getting baited into it. AI slob is annoying, but we do want to know what chefs do about sticky pizza dough, or what that secret in the pyramids is, or how the kid reacted to what the cat did, or (insert your guilty pleasure here).
on some platforms I try to be really good about hitting the "Never recommend this channel/page/whatever again" whenever the algo serves me the bottom-tier gutter trash videos, such as the "idiotic life hack that obviously won't work" engagement bait. It's a small drop in the ocean, but at least that one channel will never be served to me again.
Replaced them with App stores, why one code base when you can have N code bases: web sites, ios, android , tv …
cheaper, privacy-oriented and more secure lol obviously not, doesn’t help the consumer or the developer.
Xslt is brilliant at transforming raw data, a tree or table for example, without having to install Office apps or paying a number of providers to simply view it without massive disruption loops.
This would need to be tested. There's a lot going on already during normal take-offs. Now you're in a situation where the engine fire alarm is going off, probably a few other alarms, you got so many messages on your display that it only shows the most urgent one, you're taking quick glances at 50 points in the cockpit already.
And how would the cameras even work? Are the pilots supposed to switch between multiple camera feeds, or do we install dozens of screens? And then what, they see lots of black smoke on one camera, does that really tell them that much more than the ENG FIRE alert blaring in the background?
Maybe this could help during stable flight, but in this situation, when the pilots were likely already overloaded and probably had only a few seconds to escape this situation - if it was possible at all - I can't imagine it being helpful.
You know how the tail camera works on the new planes? Something like that, which can be far away from the wings, but get the full picture. Am I saying it's the solution for everything? No. But after you go through the memory committed items during an emergency, you can take a look outside and be like "ah, I see better what the problem is".
If we don't try to see how it goes, we won't know if it is a good idea or not.
It'd certainly need more thought put into it than just showing the camera view from the entertainment system. Either just one camera on the tail pointed forwards, so you have one single camera that can show the whole plane, or two cameras in the front, one pointed at each wing. Two cameras is worse than one, but they are less likely to be affected by smoke or blood splatters or whatever. Maybe give each pilot one of the camera feeds. And you'd have to fit a dedicated screen for the video feed so pilots don't need to switch through screens in an emergency.
It'd take lots of testing and engineering. But especially in cases where you have multiple warnings going off I imagine that a quick view at an exterior camera can often give you a clearer/faster indication of the situation
If you work near water you should be wearing a life vest. Especially if it's an area that may be hard to get to or where other dangers are around or if you're alone.
What an absolutely hilarious idea that appeals to emotion are a uniquely feminine way to tackle a problem, while men just go on and make logical arguments, which I assume they then scrutinize rationally to be convinced by the most rigorously argued-for one.
This reminds me of my father getting so frustrated with something that didnt go his way, yelling about all the “idiots” that are the problem and that he was the only unemotional rational person there. Plus every other variant of this. I eventually told him he was one of the more emotional people I knew; that anger is an emotion. On the positive he started checking his random lashing out at these invisible (to everyone else) enemies.
Other than that, one need to look no further than the guys in the White House/ICE for examples of highly emotionally based men.
The amusing part was it seemed my comment provoked a deep insecurity about that-that ended up living in his head from that point forward. It was typical banter but turns out that one struck a chord
If, when asked why most mathematicians are men, from the whole universe of possibilities there are only two reasons that come to your mind: women are emotional, or it's random chance - then I have really bad news about your talent for male rationality and critical thinking.
Why wouldn't you build wind turbines in Southern Germany? "Generally less wind" does not mean "wind power is infeasible", which it is absolutely not. There are fewer good spots, but that's why, say, the state of Bavaria aims for less than one fifth of the total capacity than the state of Lower Saxony, despite being almost twice as large.
It's also not "aggressively" subsidised at all. It's actually about 0.3 cents per kWh actually produced, which is basically nothing compared to fossil power subsidies (8.6 cents per kWh using gas, or 20 cents per kWh using coal), and let's not even start talking about nuclear power (34 cents per kWh)
Wind power is so cheap compared to fossil and even a bit cheaper than solar, so maybe Germany should start expand it agrresively.
I wrote aggressively expanded. It doesn't make sense to build wind in a region where it's only profitable due to subsidies.
> Wind power is so cheap
Germany has the highest energy costs in the world. The alledged price points for wind and solar do not account for the total cost: Negative electricity prices when there is too much demand, increased costs managing the grid (redispatch), the need for a double-infrastructure (because when there is no wind or solar produced, someone else has to produce)
France has lower electricity prices than Germany, while emitting only 16% (!!!!!) Co2 compared to Germany. Conclusion: Germanies "clean energy" way is a total failure. Electric cars in Germany are "dirtier" than gasoline cars due to the energy mix.
Electricity prices are only very tangentially related to production cost. As you say yourself, grid costs are a factor.
> France has lower electricity prices
France has incredibly high subsidies for nuclear power, and it's still not enough. And their newest power plant cost 20 billion just in construction for a paltry 1.6GW, and to even begin new ones they need to subsidy them with 100€ per MWh (which is about thirty-three times the subsidies wind power recieves in Germany).
If anything, France is a nice example of how it's maybe nice to /have/ a fleet of nukes, but Germany does not have them nor do they have the time to build up reactors. Even if there were politicians interested in paying for them (because the free market sure isn't).
France doesn't have high subsidies for nuclear. EDF financial reports are public, please don't spread misinformation.
In fact they have an additional tax for it called arenh.
You could consider nationalization a subsidy(albeit it wasn't) but that was a one off 9bn payment. Germany spent double of that last year alone on EEG ren subsidies and still had highest household prices in EU.
German wind gets about 70€/MWh.
New french nuclear CFDs aren't clear. Fla3 doesn't have cfd and has a prod cost of 90-120€/MWh. But that's a failed project which got delayd and had supply chain issues. If EPR2 will have the same problems - yes, it'll cost similarly. Otherwise it'll be cheaper, like eg building a unit in 10y instead of 20
Well the whole clean energy transformation in Germany has a tax payer burden of 3 trillion or more till 2045. Frances nuclear plants didn't even receive 1 trillion of subsidies in total since their existence (according to my quick research). But let's say France and Germany are even in subsidies or France pays slightly more: I thought it's about Co2? Again: France has 1/6 of the Co2 emissions compared to Germany. Just by that metric it's a colossal failure!
When you say Germany can't just build nuclear plants now you are right. But the solution can't be to expand solar and wind, while destroying coal and nuclear plants - which is what they do. The last minister for these matters had the unironical idea to shutdown industry when the renewables don't produce. The idea was to move from a demand driven industry, to a supply driven industry. Total madness. The idea to produce wind in the south of Germany is part of such madness.
You're mixing up historic costs with current costs. As an illustration: the moon landing cost just $25 billion dollars, the Manhattan project even just $2 billion, what do you think a project of these scales would cost today?
You're also mixing the status quo with your (unclear) desire of how the world should be. Germany spent the last 80 years to build up an energy grid built on coal – nuclear peaked at 30%!. Of course they emit more CO2 today compared to the French!
But if anything, that's an argument for why Germany should start agressively building out renewables (aggression there was abandoned 20 years ago by the Merkel admin).
> 3 trillion or more till 2045
Looking at decades is a surefire way to get big numbers. But depending on your starting points (I guess 1999 during SPD/Greens coalition), that's just €60 billion per year. A lot of money but not exactly shocking.
> The idea to produce wind in the south of Germany is part of such madness.
Even the state of Bavaria - not exactly known to be mad for wind power - classifies more than half of its area as containing locations suitable for wind power. Of course that's nothing compared to Lower Saxony, but that's why they aim for total installed capacity of just 6 GW by 2050 (source for all that is the Bayrischer Windatlas issued by the, again, very sceptical of wind power, CSU government of Bavaria).
You're really just decade old fud against renewables. Do you really think that in the whole of 70 thousand square kilometres of Bavaria there are no points where the wind is strong enough 150 m above ground to produce power profitably? Because that's just not true. And 6 GW, by the way, are just one to four thousand modern turbines. Across the largest state of Germany. There's nothing mad about that at all.
Germany spent over 360bn on eeg alone till now, not adjusted to inflation. That's about 2x the cost of entire french nuclear fleet. And EEG is projected to rise further.
In 20y since EEG creation, Germany achieved much poorer decarbonization vs France during Messmer
So Germany did both spend more and achieved poorer results which can be seen literally today or in yearly average. All this while it has highest household prices in EU per eurostat (last year, this year it'll probably be topped by Romania)
And this includes everything. No subsidies were given per bundestag. In fact if subsidies were so high as some claim, govt would have just needed to cancel them instead of banning. The only ones that are trying to picture a different reality are some orgs like FOS/Greenpeace.
Wind in southern Germany is unprofitable because of solar(solar is almost always universally cheaper vs wind) and transmission cost, as well as nimby from all parties incl greens. You get much less output vs north while solar is cheaper and eats your share. This is why despite higher incentives not much is built. Currently the bid ceiling is in 7ct/kwh range. But final price is determined by other factors too, like how often you pay this guarantee or curtailment. EEG is projected to rise despite most expensive contracts being over, because it's paid more frequently.
Offshore is in a worse situation since it's even more expensive to deploy there- recent tender got 0 bids, just like in DK and UK in the past. That's also why UK rised compensation in AR6/AR7
New nuclear for Germany is pointless to discuss. Nobody except maybe afd wants it. The CDU promised to do a research about restarting some older units during elections - guess what- nothing got done.
Germany is currently paying about 18bn/y for transmission, 18bn/y for eeg and 2-3bn/y on curtailment and 18bn/y on distribution. All except maybe distribution network are depending on renewables expansion - the more you deploy - the more you pay, at the tradeoff that merit order will be cheaper when wind blows and sun shines. If they don't, like today https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min... merit order gets super expensive - partly because fossils are expensive, partly because firm power is asking more to compensate periods when wind/solar are strong, partly due to co2 tax. And per bnetza/Fraunhofer ISE gas needs expansion to have sufficient firming
> then offset the lower average wind speed by increasing subsidies
If true, it means that because wind in those regions is infeasible, they have to subsidise it.
Initial (multi-decade) subsidies to kicks things off makes sense because the plan is to get them to pay off eventually. But increasing subsidies in regions where it's _never_ going to work is disingenuous and a waste.
I don't know what the name of the internet law is, but I think it goes something like: when someone tells you about a regulation and how outrageously stupid it obviously is, they probably misrepresented it or frames it in an adventurous way.
In this case, there is no "increased subsidies for less feasible regions". And if you know anything about the region, it's very implausible. Southern states are generally not forerunners for wind power, with Bavaria's governing party being downright hostile. They are not increasing subsidies, that's for sure.
My best guess is that this refers to either differences in subsidies between the states - Lower Saxony has lower to no subsidies because building wind turbines is popular and profitable there without additional funding. Bavaria meanwhile probably lacks experts and has to bring them down from Lower Saxony or NRW, increasing building costs even at locations just as suitable as in Lower Saxony. So yeah, they might still have state subsidies, but not because they want wind power where it's infeasible. You wouldn't find an operator for that.
Another guess is that maybe this about the process for bidding on subsidies. This is a method where for large-scale projects operators can bid on executing projects not just with money but also by the amount of subsidies. For off-shore power, that subsidy often goes negative now, i.e. it's practically a license cost now. That does indeed mean that less desirable projects, which are probably less ideal for power generation, receive more subsidies, but that's a far cry from building wind power in "infeasible" locations.
> The price actually paid is the bid price, which is adjusted up or down by a correction factor. This is higher in low-wind locations and lower in high-wind locations. Put simply, this means that where there is a lot of wind and yields are high, there is slightly less money per kilowatt hour fed into the grid. Where the wind is weaker, the subsidy increases.
Now why do they do this? Because the goal is to do _everything_ with renewables. Which means: Since it's not so easy to route electricity from the north to the south, the south needs it's own plants, even if they are unprofitable.
I thought you were referring to that. But what's so bad about highly profitable places receiving less subsidy? Framed that way it's not as outrageous, right?
There's no malicious encouragement to build wind power where it does not make sense.
But why are there subsidies anyway? Well, all forms of power are subsidised, nuclear power the most, and renewables and coal about to the same tune (in Germany). Also, the electricity price is very low in Germany. Often lower as in France. You know, neither coal plant operators nor wind power operators profit from the extremely high consumer price point. So even though wind power is the cheapest form of energy to produce (in Germany), even it can't break even all the times, which is a scary prospect for investors.
Speed bumps work but putting big flower pots in the way is even better. It forces people to slow down without giving them the feeling that they get slowed down for no reason.
