Cherry trees all across Japan (not just Kyoto) are blooming earlier and earlier
and this confirms that the trend cannot be explained by local urbanization alone c(https://gizmodo.com/japan-hasnt-seen-cherry-blossoms-this-ea...). However, Kyoto's transformation into a dense urban environment has for sure made the local signal worse.
This is what rquickshare documentation says: "Wi-Fi LAN only. Your devices need to be on the same network for this app to work." So no, it's not an AirDrop replacement.
Yes, you are right. My response was based on the presentation from the first page: "htmx allows you to access AJAX, WebSockets and Server Sent Events directly in HTML, using attributes". In the meantime I read the documentation and, as you just said, it supports animations and much more.
You are comparing apple to oranges :)
alpine and stimulus are frameworks (doing all sorts of stuff: css animation, data <-> objects, etc) while htmx is a library focusing solely on ajax.
From your list, the only similar project to htmx is intercooler-js, but... htmx is actually the new version of intercooler-js (both projects by the same author).
I agree with you but in a different way :) (what follows its a long text written in bad English but I hope I'll manage to make my idea clear)
Regarding your idea that "By any standard of effectiveness, this is not looking good for pharmaceuticals": This is a very complex topic and I don't think anyone has a clear and objective view/explanation about this.
For example, we have a big problem with the antibiotics. We eat a lot of meat from animals that where treated with antibiotics. We "overuse" antibiotics. Etc. Because of this, new antibiotics-resistant bacteria appeared and classical antibiotics became less and less effective in fighting against them. How should we categorize this issue? Should we see it as a proof of the fact that medicines are not as effective as advertised? It's not a problem with antibiotics per se. Or as a proof that modern medicine is overrated? Medicine correctly identified the problem(bacteria) and the treatment(antibiotics). In reality it is a problem generated by mostly by the rising popularity of automedication, lack of basic medical/pharmaceutical education and urban myths (antibiotics are good for anything), medicines used on animals (which is not a problem of human medicine), and, I would say, only a tiny part of the problem is the treatments that unnecessarily include antibiotics and are prescribed by medicine doctors.
But, let's say that we don't know anything about the above mentioned facts and we study some statistics. What would we think when seeing a clear correlation between the increase in the number of antibiotics and decrease of the effectiveness of the treatments? We could see it as a proof that "the quality of medicine drugs has decreased resulting in an increase of ineffective treatment".
The point I'm trying to make is that the reason why the effectiveness of many treatments decreased and now we have a decline in life expectancy it's a very complex issue and it's not fair to see it as simple as a fact failure of pharmaceutics or/and medicine.
Regarding your last statement, I think that we are not seeing improvements because our modern environment and life style has changed and is changing in such a rapid and unpredictable way that medicine can keep the pace. Medicine it's improving, but it's improving too slow.
It is as out environment and lifestyle is traveling by plane while medicine and pharmaceutics are traveling by bus...
There were and are a lot of articles about the fact that many prescription drugs and many treatments are overrated and I totally belive that. But saying that "most" medical treatments & prescription drugs are worthless it's quite a radical view based on... pure speculation.
What I don't understand is the part about the supralinear/sublinear particularity of the dendrite. First, the article explains that: " If enough inputs are activated in the same small bit of dendrite then the sum of those simultaneous inputs will be bigger than the sum of each input acting alone (...) A bit of dendrite is “supralinear”: within a dendrite, 2+2=6." Further in the article, I find this explanation: "Because dendrites are naturally not linear: in their normal state they actually sum up inputs to total less than the individual values. They are sub-linear. For them 2+2 = 3.5". What makes the difference between a bit of dendrite spiting a sublinear vs. supralinear "result"? I feel that the difference lays in the 'if enough inputs are activated' vs. 'in their normal state'. If that's the case, what's the "normal state"? Could anybody help me understand this part?