Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday February 19 2017, @02:10AM   Printer-friendly
from the like-adding-ice-to-a-drink dept.

Climate Central reports

[...] A massive iceberg roughly 225 square miles in size--or in more familiar terms, 10 times the size of Manhattan--broke off [from the Pine Island Glacier] in July 2015. Scientists subsequently spotted cracks in the glacier on a November 2016 flyover. And in January, another iceberg cleaved off the glacier.

Satellite imagery captured the most recent calving event, which Ohio State glaciologist Ian Howat said " is the equivalent of an 'aftershock'" following the July 2015 event. The iceberg was roughly "only" the size of Manhattan, underscoring just how dramatic the other breakups have been.

[...] The ocean under Pine Island Glacier's ice shelf has warmed about 1°F since the 1990s. That's causing the ice shelf to melt and pushing the grounding line--the point where the ice begins to float--back toward land, creating further instability.

[...] The glaciers [such as the Pine Island Glacier] and ice shelves [such as the Larsen C ice shelf, which is on a death watch] help hold back a massive ice sheet on land. Their failure would send that ice to the ocean, pushing sea levels up to 13 feet higher than they are today.

[...] Cutting carbon pollution presents the only path forward to stave off the worst impacts of a melting Antarctic.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:24AM (#468841)

    What is your purpose in stripping out #FragmentIdentifiers in URLs after I have made an effort to include those?

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:30AM (#468854)

    It seems a lot of sites are using #randomcrap to implement tracking. So maybe they got autoremoved. But if this time they weren't a tracker, but proper tag-with-id/a-with-name for a given point in the document, the autoremover was too "smart".

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by cmn32480 on Sunday February 19 2017, @05:30AM

    by cmn32480 (443) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {08423nmc}> on Sunday February 19 2017, @05:30AM (#468864) Journal

    I try to strip all the cruft off links. You are NOT special.

    --
    "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @05:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @05:39AM (#468867)

      That's not cruft, you nitwit.
      Talk to the other editors to find out how ignorant you are.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 1) by charon on Sunday February 19 2017, @08:53AM

        by charon (5660) on Sunday February 19 2017, @08:53AM (#468901) Journal
        You mean the guy who has edited more than 2500 stories over the last two years? I'm pretty sure he does precisely what he means to.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @09:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @09:31AM (#468905)

          Clearly, quantity and quality can lack overlap.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:57PM (#468955)

            I guess you need to hire someone that can do this at a salary appropriate for the position?

            I've done stuff that got altered after I put careful time into it as well, and ended up disappointed with what happened to my work, but come on, the editors here are free and do this as a service. Your proposed article was posted. We'd be discussing it now were it not for the complaints regarding the short cut in the short cut.

            Perhaps we can request that users with a certain level of karma are allowed to post reference points as you had done? It'd be a matter of someone being able to alter the site's code to know that User #X shouldn't get as heavy of an editorial hand on the URLs, as flashing lights and manual reminders will not scale. But it would be prone to abuse.

            personally I have learned to live with safeguards such as what the editor had done, but on my own, I make use of similar organization methods... too much is open to abuse to really expect to use a lot of that methodology publically without risking encountering someone that wants to advertise to me with the same methods.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by cmn32480 on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:54PM

        by cmn32480 (443) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {08423nmc}> on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:54PM (#468974) Journal

        In my opinion, some fragment identifiers are worthwhile. Others are, as I said, cruft.

        Often the #content fragment will hide things like a title bar, which, in many cases seems to be an attempt to hide the source of the of the content. This is particularly useful to a submitter who has sources that can be considered questionable. It is certainly used when sources are very far left (as yours tend to be) or very far to the right (as The Mighty Buzzards tend to be) of center on any particular issue. If a member of the community is reading the article and clicks the link without considering what it is (and thankfully they do trust us not to post crap links), they ought to be able to evaluate if the source is credible or not without having to take your word or mine for it. When linking to a related article in a summary, having the entire bit, including the page that it is coming from displayed is a good thing, in my opinion.

        Ever since you tossed in a link (which I cannot find, and will not be wasting a ton of time looking for) to a Google archive version of a page that was 4 lines long and had all kinds of highlights, emphasis, etc, that was not in the original source for the article, I have qualified every link you submit as suspect.

        And for the tracking question that came up earlier [soylentnews.org], we see a lot of links in submissions that are pulled direct from the address bar and have the trackers still embedded in them. This article from bufferapp.com [bufferapp.com] gives a decent guide to understanding them and what each piece means. This kind of cruft we try to be extremely conscious about removing.

        Gewg_, I'm truly sorry that you don't like the job I do. Some of the articles you submit, while leaning a lot further left and toward the "OMG the world is ending tomorrow" than makes me comfortable, are really very good. Where I personally think you fall short is often trying to cherry pick small bits of sentences or paragraphs that hold with your personal beliefs instead of letting the article stand on its own and letting the community debate it on merit instead of only the points that you want them to see.

        I shall now go cry in the corner, for I have been called a nitwit by some guy on the internet.

        --
        "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:36PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:36PM (#469042) Journal

          Thank you for the explanation. I'd never heard the # part of a link called a fragment marker before.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @08:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @08:46PM (#469060)

          Often the #content fragment will hide things like a title bar

          I block a great deal of junk in my browser.
          If I have ever linked to a page that does what you described, I regret that.
          I make an effort to avoid such situations.

          When I come across a page that does ridiculous nonsense with their presentation, I try to find another page with similar content and link to that instead.

          That said, it doesn't sound like you are actually talking about the browser's title bar but rather the headline within the page.

          On some occasions, I've chosen a #FragmentIdentifier that is a bit farther down the page, where the actual content starts.
          In that case, the #FragmentIdentifier helps to -avoid- such page-construction nonsense.
          Again, this is in consideration of our users who depend on a screenreader; a lowest-common-denominator thing.

          evaluate if the source is credible

          I'd like to hear from anyone here whose browser does not allow him/her to hover over the hyperlink and see the URL.
          You are hand-waving.

          crap links

          You are hand-waving.
          If you are not willing to click the link and see what results, and evaluate that, what good is it having you on staff?

          since [the time] you tossed in a link [...] to a Google [cache] version of a page

          I had done it prior to that and that passed without a ripple.
          You are hand-waving again.
          I ALWAYS include a link to the (orig) page.
          Again, if you're not willing to click the link and evaluate that, what use are you to the site?

          we see a lot of links in submissions that [...] have the trackers still embedded in them

          I challenge you to point to even 1 of those from me.
          I make an effort to remove that junk.

          [URLs] pulled direct from the address bar

          I rail against that myself.
          (The cold weather viking bikers link the other day got a rebuke from me for its form.)
          I'm similarly rebuking you right now regarding your ability to evaluate what is useful in a URL and what is not.

          sources [...] very far left (as yours tend to be) or very far to the right (as The Mighty Buzzards tend to be)

          I've said before that I wouldn't give you a plugged nickel for a person or a story without a point of view.
          I consider the types associated with that to be intellectually lazy.
          If you can't defend your belief system when it is challenged, what you have hasn't been arrived at through an actual thought process; it's just prejudice.

          I've also mentioned that those types of stories tend to get the most activity here, so clearly there is a hankering for them.

          article from bufferapp.com

          ...which is about tracking junk that I have already said I make a point of removing.
          It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

          Additionally, that page's construction is an example of something for which I might include a #FragmentIdentifier.
          1) The content doesn't begin at the very top of the page (HTML-only presentation).
          1a) Accessibility guidelines also state that if you don't put your content at the very top of the page, the very first thing on your page should be a Jump To Content link.
          Not done there.
          2) There's interstitial junk between the headline and the start of the text body (though I've seen much worse).

          Compounding the badness of the page construction, is the fact that there is no #FragmentIdentifier just before the headline.
          The first useful #FragmentIdentifier is #article_wrapper. [bufferapp.com]
          Use of Accessibility features on the page is a ham-fisted, slap-dash effort.
          As such, even using the #FragmentIdentifier that is available is a less-than-ideal situation.

          I shall now go cry in the corner, for I have been called a nitwit by some guy on the internet.

          ...and well you should. 8-)

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
          (Some guy on the internet)

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:30AM

      by butthurt (6141) on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:30AM (#468878) Journal

      I'm using a browser window that is probably somewhat smaller than most readers, and fonts that are probably much larger than other readers'. When I opened the edited link,

      http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-iceberg-climate-21167 [climatecentral.org]

      it showed me the Climate Central logo and the beginnings of columns labelled "Who We Are," "What We Do" and "About Our Expertise." By scrolling down, I could see the story, none of which was visible until I scrolled.

      When I opened the submitter's link,

      http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-iceberg-climate-21167#content [climatecentral.org]

      the story's headline appeared conveniently--and less confusingly--at the top of my browser window.

      The text after the "#" is not sent to the Web server.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragment_identifier [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:55AM (#468893)

        I've seen that claimed before.
        OTOH, as AC #468854 notes above, some sites are adding an identifier to the URL they return as what, at first glance, appears to be a #FragmentIdentifier.
        The ones I've noticed have a dot right after the crunch, then a 8-character or so alphanumeric string.
        ...so I'm skeptical about the claim.

        .
        As you note, folks with a non-typical browser config can benefit from an added #FragmentIdentifier.
        I know that we have 1 blind Soylentil who relies on a screenreader and I think I've spotted another with greatly-reduced vision.
        Those guys (and any potential newbies with similar limitations) are specifically who I'm thinking of when I add #FragmentIdentifiers.
        That others also benefit is gravy.

        When I find a site/page which doesn't use accessibility features, I append #NoFragmentIdentifiers to their URL to note that I have checked the link and that it is alive (but that their web guy is clueless).

        Some sites are so horribly constructed and so thoroughly piss me off that I also append ?ExtremelyPoorUseOfAccessibilityFeatures .

        Apparently, encountering that completely freaks out cmn32480 causing him to start deleting anything that he doesn't understand.
        ...instead if asking questions of knowledgeable cohorts or doing some basic research.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:47PM (#469020)

          OTOH, as AC #468854 notes above, some sites are adding an identifier to the URL they return as what, at first glance, appears to be a #FragmentIdentifier.
          The ones I've noticed have a dot right after the crunch, then a 8-character or so alphanumeric string.
          ...so I'm skeptical about the claim.

          They aren't sent to the server. UNLESS you have javascript enabled and the server includes a spy script to extract the identifier and send it back to the server (or a 3rd party tracking server) as part of its javascripty spying job. But that's independent of the initial http page load.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @09:04PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @09:04PM (#469068)

            Now, see there.
            Some might have thought that this (sub)thread wandered away from the original topic and is a distraction, but it's getting some useful information posted.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]