I've been using it since the Raspberry Pi 3 days (before rpi 4 came about) because ads affected them so severely. And now that we have the pi4 that can handle the load, I still have not changed from reading CNN from the lite page. And that has carried over to all my other devices. I just Google the title if I want to see pictures or video in the article.
I used to do the same with Twitter, but these days there is nearly no difference between the mobile and the regular versions.
It would do well with a tiny amount of additional CSS to make it work well on large screens, but I guess they don't want to make it too nice to use for that segment.
IIRC, this site was put together, in particular, for low-bandwidth users (like mobile phone users back in the feature phone day) where every byte cost. CSS would be an unnecessary and potentially expensive addition for those users.
It's not optimized to that level. There's 1.1k of inline tracking javascript. And a reference to an external stylesheet for the styling, along with a bunch of wastefully long hex identifiers.
Took a look at the dev console, there are 2 tracking scripts, segment and CNN specific one. Those take up the majority of bandwidth. There's also a separate CSS style sheet. The main DOM and the stylesheet are <10% of the total bytes transferred. The favicon is the same byte size as the entire DOM.
Don't think there is necessarily a consideration of byte cost, given the size of the tracking scripts. A few lines to make this manageable on wide monitors aren't prohibitive for those users.
The website already serves a 496 byte CSS file (359 minified, even less gzipped), addition of a max-width to make it readable on large screens wouldn't make a difference.
I read HN on Kindle[1], So low bloat websites like these are always a pleasure to read on Kindle's forever experimental browser.
The websites needn't be text only, Reducing useless elements like Techcrunch's content wrap can go a long way to improve readability and accessibility.
Sana'a, the capital of Yemen, is located at an altitude of 2,250 meters (approx. 7 thousand feet). It has almost three million people. Pumping required amounts of water from sea level to such heights is quite a challenge.
Tehran is at 1200 meters. Tabriz, 1350 meters. Mashhad, 1000 meters altitude and far from the sea.
I don't know anything about desalination but from what I've seen on YouTube, desalination does not result in clean water and powder table salt. It results in water and very salty water. What do we do with this very salty water? Apparently, it isn't safe to just dump it into the water source...
I was a photographer on a cruise ship a couple of times this year and when we toured the engine rooms with the engineers, they said that the on-ship desalination plant was not able to operate anywhere near populated shore because they weren't allowed to dump the resulting brine.
I wonder why they don’t just dump it into some bit of land
where it can evaporate. Obviously this approach doesn’t work everywhere, i.e., if there is risk of it seeping into groundwater or other parts of the environment, but a few sq km of middle eastern desert? Seems fine.
If managed correctly there is little point. However it seems that the plants in Israel also use evaporative pools on some of the brine and sell it off to some chemical plants but at the scale they desalinate it just not feasible to pool all of if and you still need to get rid of the salt eventually.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00431...
i don't know what sort of quantities we're talking about here, but would it be feasible to use the brine for evaporative cooling, and then you've just got a solid to clean up afterwards.
We have 5000km oil pipelines… the WestEast gas pipeline that China is finishing will be nearly 9000km… the Caspian Sea is like 120km off the outskirts of Tehran.
Agreed. The Middle East spans 15+ countries, 5 timezones and has a population of 300m+ .... so saying the "middle east" is running out of water definitely lacks specificity
Indeed. I pay a little over $1/cubic meter of water from our municipal supply in an area with plentiful natural water. They’re treating natural water, but even if they had to desalinate, my bill would stay the same order of magnitude.
They also have two major rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Why should upstream nations deny them fresh water and then tell them to use ocean water?
Turkey has built major dams to deny water to Syria, Iraq, and Kuwait, and no one cares because Turkey is a strong NATO member.
Turkey also has access to the sea, fyi. Maybe you should recommend they desalinate water and let the fresh water flow again?
> Why should upstream nations deny them fresh water and then tell them to use ocean water?
This is the premise of "water right" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right), and as freshwater scarcity exacerbates, it's why a lot of people are anticipating armed conflicts over land on which freshwater exists.
It is not running out of population, though. Actually, to the contrary, most Middle Eastern populations are still growing. (For example, birth rate for Iraq was 28.1 per 1,000.)
I expect the eastern Turkish borders to become a mass migration flashpoint, with possible EU investments, too.
Women gaining financial independence, education, and access to cheap and convenient contraceptives? Population decreases. And I would bet copulation, for at least some portion of men, decreases.
If just 5 per cent of contemporary Middle Eastern population moves to the EU, liberalism here is going to be toast. Together with the welfare states that Americans so admire.
We need immigration; the way it is done is the question. I was raised in a very mixed society and always had and have good friends of all sides but those were all 2nd+ generation immigrants if from Africa, Middle East, China. Never saw the difference with myself and they for many things did not either. But a first gen I can understand is very delicate, but we do need them... so better find a way.
My roommate at uni was an Iranian girl studying law and she was very smart and nice and very western; one day she went away visited her family in Iran and after a while the landlord called where the rent was. Never heard of her again... there is that...
For Germany, absorbing 1000 random people yearly is an easy task. A million that came in 2015 was already quite a challenge. Ten million coming in a year would overwhelm even Germany.
(But that is a theoretical scenario; in practice, they wouldn't get there, because Germany is pretty far from the Middle East and the border countries like Greece, Turkey and Italy would sink into complete chaos if tens of millions really came.)
Agreed, but we need a certain influx we can handle and we should handle. More is... a problem. And a problem we need to solve as a world. Most of this is very complicated and geopolitical going back a long time. We are just trying to put out the fires (and without water, literally in this case).
Who says if and how many "we" need? No one seems to be asking the actual people living there (e.g European), it's all arbitrary decisions made by Germany or some E.U council.
Last time we actually asked the people in a referendum what they want (Brexit) we were all surprised. Let's not assume we know what the majority wants.
But why would one ask the people this directly? This is more complex. Asking the people will get you populist reactions and that was not surprising. More surprising how close it was to people who were not just 'against everything' but lost.
The majority does not to die in a ditch (let's assume) so the chosen gov is supposed to prevent that. I do not know of other ways, currently in the EU, than work per hour and that needs people and our workforce is declining without immigration.
Why not ask the people this directly? It's a major decision with real impact on the region. Also, there is a growing resentment among people that the EU leaders don't really pay any attention to the problems the average joe is facing on his daily life. You know stuff like job security, house prices, gasoline prices and all that has really deteriorated in most places. Instead they see their bills go up because of green energy transition. Many people no longer feel like the system is working for them (see this great article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...)
If the EU continues "not to ask" them because it is "complex" the resentment will only grow.
Well, in most countries here so far the democracy works through elected parties. So sure you can have your vote but what follows is determined by the parties which you voted for.
We can only try and see what happens but direct people voting in referenda has a strong immediate feedback response which does not take into account anything that is actually happening as most people only hear what they read only on their favorite channels online (which can be 100% fake). It is a snapshot of the now: as has been shown after that many Brits would have not voted brexit if they were fully aware of all the (mis)information.
This has nothing to do with calling people stupid or ignorant; it has to do with some powers that be being very clever getting information out people act on and the EU rulers, so far as incredibly bad at this. They seem to be incapable of explaining long term benefits or what is happening at all to all the populous. This is a big problem. But even if it would be solved; the channels to reach are vast and diversified so if you just ask people to respond immediately, they will and you will get a very skewed look.
And yes, agreed, there is a lot wrong but a lot of it is also miscommunication or actually no communication from the German and Brussels towers. That is wrong but asking 'Joe on the street' about immigration, I can predict their answers based on who you ask, even if this is not in their best interest.
I cannot see how this will win anything; it will surely break up the EU, which could be good in some universe, but yeah, it was not great before the EU (to say it mildly) for many member states, so what data do we have things would improve? People have never experienced this prosperity: I cannot see, unless directly asked in a moment of angry 'took ma jubbbbs', how anyone besides Germany or France would benefit from leaving and they do not want to.
> as has been shown after that many Brits would have not voted brexit if they were fully aware of all the (mis)information.
The misinformation was abundant on both sides; I kept reading on and on about how poor Brexit will make the UK, how tech will collapse in London and tons of jobs will move away. It has been blown out of proportion.
Politicians and technocrats on both sides lie or exaggerate to get what they want.
> But why would one ask the people this directly? This is more complex. Asking the people will get you populist reactions and that was not surprising.
“Don’t worry simple villagers, me and my intellectual friends in the city went to University. We learned that multiculturalism is always better and anything else is ignorant racism. We know what is best for you.”
Edit: cute that this is being downvoted. This comment must hit a little too close for some of you, eh?
No, we (and it is easier now to do remotely even) vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. But that is not a direct 'how about letting 10000 immigrants in vote yes/no on this link' : that is something very different.
No. You don’t have the right to tell people who have lived in the same way for 100s of years in small, rural communities how to live and force them to take in incompatible, ward of the state refugees.
You do not have the right to destroy their culture and way of life because you “know what is best”.
This is a local issue. If you’re so certain your political party is “doing the right thing”, then allow those migrants to live where they are accepted and by people who want them.
You are not special, smarter, or more morally superior than your rural countrymen because you parrot party indoctrination about forced multiculturalism. Put your money where YOUR mouth is, not mine. Stop forcing others to pay for your virtue signaling.
> No, we vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf.
Kind of, but only to a limited degree. We vote for administrations that should deal "in our interest", but there's e.g. no legal mandate for them to decide to give up democracy and choose a King. Many EU-states recognized that and went for referendums on large items, e.g. on the European Constitution.
A large-scale change of the nation is certainly not within the mandate given to them in any normal election.
I understand the hesitance regarding direct democracy, because it's inconvenient. You have to actually convince people, and not broker a deal behind closed doors where you bribe people and they say yes "on behalf of everyone who voted for them". It works great in Switzerland though, they're peaceful and happy and free, and have been doing it successfully for quite a substantial amount of time.
Way better than 10 rich wolves and their 200 expert advisor pet-wolfs deciding for 350 million sheep, which is the "solution" to the "big problem" of majority rule.
Not trying to defend someone I don’t know, but I know a lot of students get a single entry visa and being from Iran, there’s a chance that she couldn’t either get out or was denied entry. It’s just a possibility among other possible scenarios of course.
Edit: My assumption was that you’re talking about US, if that’s not the case then I could be wrong.
No, we don't. This is a mantra that keeps being repeated without much substance.
Housing affordability, job quality, public finance sustainability won't get any better with immigration. Maybe salaries keep being depressed, consumer demand increases, and that's good for profits. But I can't think of much more!
We are not making enough babies in the EU ourselves to take care of the elderly... so yes we do. Or we need some other revolution that does not depend on work per hour.
We already here are doing our best, not really successfully, to get the ultra rich to chime in and to get foreign companies to pay more than peanuts. Also the AI overlords are, in all practical ways, very far away (and mostly benefitting the very rich).
> We are not making enough babies in the EU ourselves to take care of the elderly... so yes we do [need immigration].
Amazing.
That's right up there - identical premise - with the ever popular HN refrain: but who will pick the strawberries if not for the immigrants. Inevitably stated in most every thread on immigration.
Philosophically it's perfectly aligned with the big business types that also want cheap labor for exactly the same reasons: more people to take advantage of, more people to cast into cheap labor roles of servitude to the aging/dying/lazy/entitled affluent classes.
But how will we prop up our collapsing entitlement systems, which were poorly managed and poorly funded and poorly thought out, if we don't import massive volumes of labor to pay taxes so the entitled classes can pretend their system isn't failing and so those immigrants themselves can get screwed later on when the entitlement systems they're brought in to prop up are bled dry.
> That's right up there - identical premise - with the ever popular HN refrain: but who will pick the strawberries if not for the immigrants.
In my experience people making that argument are more often than not the type that think manual labor is "beneath" them. The type that would rather collect unemployment for months at a time than take a job they don't like. It says much more about them than they think it does.
> We are not making enough babies in the EU ourselves to take care of the elderly
Any source for that? Is that what this is all about - cos I'm sure we can pay more for caregivers and more people will want these jobs. The problem is it doesn't pay well.
100% this. As long as there's substantial unemployment, there's no labor shortage, but the jobs are hard, the hours are long and the pay is bad. Pay more, and people will take the job. Or don't pay them more individually, but add more people, and you'll also get more applicants, because the job will be less taxing on all fronts.
The problem is that (the current form of) immigration doesn't solve that issue. I'm not intimately familiar with other countries, but Germany has very high unemployment among immigrants. At the same time, they need resources, and when they age, they're going to need to be taken care of as well.
That increases the problem and puts more load on the systems that are strained to begin with. That would look totally different if it was a different group of immigrants, but we have to look at reality, not a theoretical ideal.
You are talking populist millennial vs baby boomer (I am not) but I am referring to existentialist issues for people over 50 now and in the future while you are talking the happy few %. When people like you or me are elderly, this will look like a shitshow if we do not fix this, is the point.
First, your argument makes no sense even if we make the most grossly uncharitable assumptions about the sentiments of middle eastern immigrants. 5% of the middle east is only about 12 million people, and presumably not even 100% of those people are going to end up Europe. Even if every single one of those people had illiberal sentiments, they wouldn't make a dent on the electorate (and, as immigrants new to the region and therefore without strong historical/institutional inertia, would have a hard-to-impossible time effectuating change via extra-legal avenues).
Second, Immigrants aren't selected uniformly from the underlying population; they largely self-select. At least in the USA, the average Iranian immigrant is far more friendly to democracy, the rule of law, and secular government than the average white conservative. The greatest threat to liberalism in Germany is AfD, etc.
Iranians are generally easy to integrate anywhere, as they usually are university-educated people who do not want to live in the oppressive political climate of the Islamic Republic. Iran suffers one of the worst brain drains worldwide.
This cannot be generalized to the entire Middle East, though. Environmental or military disasters result in very different migration patterns than political oppression in an otherwise stable country.
"those that manage immigration well"
The keyword is well. For contemporary Western societies, highly educated, secular migrants cause the least friction. So Hong Kong inhabitants fleeing China are likely to be welcome everywhere. That does not apply as much to inhabitants of Mirpur, Pakistan.
the malthusian obsession with population growth and birth rates in the middle east, and xenophobic comments about immigration in this thread are truly disgusting.
If any given area produces more people than they can handle, then it should be their problem. The dominant ideology in middle east is religious authoritarianism. If you're a liberal democracy, then its a self goal to get immigrants from there.
Well, a couple of these liberal democracies helped establishing some of the modern day religious fundamentalism in Middle East and have been part of the problem.
It is women lacking financial independence and access to convenient contraception (such as IUDs and birth control pills), hence being subjected to unwanted pregnancies. In the vast, vast majority of cases.
Well a lot of those countries don't have money. Lebanon is pretty much bankrupt for example. Iran is close to that. Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Sudan, many many super fragile countries. It's not that the problem isn't technically solvable, it is, but many of these countries are on the verge of social and economic collapse.
Rich countries close to the Middle East have an incentive to donate power and desalinization plants to bankrupt countries in order to keep those areas habitable and thereby prevent chaotic mass migration.
You mean they’re on the verge of joining the eventual Sino-Russian common market.
Edit: I suppose we’ll see if predictions of Iran’s imminent social and economic collapse are any more true now than they have been for the past 42 years. Too bad we can’t put a few dollars on it. I trust the Lindy effect more than some NGO’s social science model.
Yes and also, this make nuclear not so responsible. In western nation nuclear are great for making electricity but cannot have so safely in unstable regime.
>The Lindy effect (also known as Lindy's Law) is a theorized phenomenon by which the future life expectancy of some non-perishable things, like a technology or an idea, is proportional to their current age. Thus, the Lindy effect proposes the longer a period something has survived to exist or be used in the present, it is also likely to have a longer remaining life expectancy.
The Persian civilization is indeed thousands of years old and will be around for at least centuries more. But when someone says Iran is about to collapse they mean the current Islamic Republic that has only been around for a few decades.
No one knows what will happen but countries that can't build working institutions, get rid of corruption and start working for the people will have a very difficult time. This is true everywhere basically but droughts will make it more pronounced.
This is a very Eurocentric attitude. An eye opener for me was when one of my Hindu coworkers in SV told me that he used to believe the USA was less corrupt than India, but after spending a few years here he realized we were just more sophisticated about it. That experience has made me rather a lot more sanguine about westerners calling non-western countries corrupt. The Afghanistan debacle is arguably the biggest rooking of a populace ever.
Your coworker likely moved in privileged circles and therefore experienced less corruption in their home country. I say this as a relatively rich person residing in a poor country. The poor and lower sections of people here bear the brunt of corruption, while people like me pay money to be shielded from corruption.
The Afghan debacle is vastly different. They have 12th century mindset and there is no way democracy could be established there in 20 years. Mark my words, China will tame them in next couple decades.
Scientists have been predicting Climate Change/Global Warming for the last decade +. I'm not smart enough to predict the future but a lot of smart folks already have. Without some kind of break through change, water scarcity will drive regional wars and the greatest human migration the world has ever seen. I suspect the day will come when those Oil tankers that carried oil could possibly carry 10's of 1000's of desperate people crashing on the shores of distance countries daily. We here in NA are not safe from the affects of this climate change since it's also happening in our back yard. There are millions of people leaving south and central America trying to reach the Land of Milk and Honey. We will be over run with 10's of millions in the coming decades if things don't change.
I wish water was as interesting as space so some billionaire would take up the challenge of figuring out how to efficiently desalinate the ocean waters and solve one the greatest challenges facing billions of people around the world....
Most of the land area of the middle east has always been uninhabitable or marginally inhabitable for the duration of human civilization. Fortunately global warming should increase evaporation and rainfall. The driest periods are always ice ages.
The last time I checked afghanistan had an infant mortality rate of over one hundred. That's a hundred babies dying per thousand live births before the age of five I think.
I know once you get infant mortality rate down to about five, the last five is very difficult to make go away but a hundred? That is such unnecessary pain and suffering that should be relatively easy to reduce.
Not sure when you checked, but it's been steadily sinking and is under 50 now, and there's no reason to believe it won't continue that way (it fell even under the Taliban). I'm not sure they'll get to Western levels, but they're closing the gap.
