Test

SMPTE color bars – Click for your own test pattern kit

This page is for posters to test comments prior to submitting them to WUWT. Your tests will be deleted in a while, though especially interesting tests, examples, hints, and cool stuff will remain for quite a while longer.

Some things that don’t seem to work any more, or perhaps never did, are kept in Ric Werme’s Guide to WUWT.

Formatting in comments

WordPress does not provide much documentation for the HTML formatting permitted in comments. There are only a few commands that are useful, and a few more that are pretty much useless.

A typical HTML formatting command has the general form of <name>text to be formatted</name>. A common mistake is to forget the end command. Until WordPress gets a preview function, we have to live with it.

N.B. WordPress handles some formatting very differently than web browsers do. A post of mine shows these and less useful commands in action at WUWT.

N.B. You may notice that the underline command, <u>, is missing. WordPress seems to suppress for almost all users, so I’m not including it here. Feel free to try it, don’t expect it to work.

Name Sample Result
b (bold) This is <b>bold</b> text This is bold text
Command strong also does bolding.
i (italics) This is <i>italicized</i> text This is italicized text
Command em (emphasize) also does italics.
a (anchor) See <a href=http://wermenh.com>My home page</a> See My home page
A URL by itself (with a space on either side) is often adequate in WordPress. It will make a link to that URL and display the URL, e.g. See http://wermenh.com.

Some source on the web is presenting anchor commands with other parameters beyond href, e.g. rel=nofollow. In general, use just href=url and don’t forget the text to display to the reader.

blockquote (indent text) My text

<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>

More of my text

My text

quoted text

More of my text

Quoted text can be many paragraphs long.

WordPress italicizes quoted text (and the <i> command enters normal text).

strike This is <strike>text with strike</strike> This is text with strike
pre (“preformatted” – use for monospace display) <pre>These lines are bracketed<br>with &lt;pre> and &lt;/pre>
These lines are bracketed

with <pre> and </pre>
Preformatted text, generally done right. Use it when you have a table or something else that will look best in monospace. Each space is displayed, something that <code> (next) doesn’t do.
code (use for monospace display) <code>Wordpress handles this very differently</code> WordPress handles this very differently
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/resources/#comment-65319 to see what this really does.

Youtube videos

Using the URL for a YouTube video creates a link like any other URL. However, WordPress accepts the HTML for “embedded” videos. From the YouTube page after the video finishes, click on the “embed” button and it will suggest HTML like:

<iframe width="560" height="315"

        src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yaBNjTtCxd4"

        frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

</iframe>

WordPress will convert this into an internal square bracket command, changing the URL and ignoring the dimension. You can use this command yourself, and use its options for dimensions. WordPress converts the above into something like:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaBNjTtCxd4&w=640&h=480]

Use this form and change the w and h options to suit your interests.

Images in comments

If WordPress thinks a URL refers to an image, it will display the image

instead of creating a link to it. The following rules may be a bit excessive,

but they should work:

  1. The URL must end with .jpg, .gif, or .png. (Maybe others.)
  2. The URL must be the only thing on the line.
  3. This means you don’t use <img>, which WordPress ignores and displays nothing.
  4. This means WordPress controls the image size.
  5. <iframe> doesn’t work either, it just displays a link to the image.

If you have an image whose URL doesn’t end with the right kind of prefix, there may be two options if the url includes attributes, i.e. if it has a question mark followed by attribute=value pairs separated by ampersands.

Often the attributes just provide information to the server about the source of the URL. In that case, you may be able to just delete everything from the question mark to the end.

For some URLs, e.g. many from FaceBook, the attributes provide lookup information to the server and it can’t be deleted. Most servers don’t bother to check for unfamiliar attributes, so try appending “&xxx=foo.jpg”. This will give you a URL with one of the extensions WordPress will accept.

WordPress will usually scale images to fit the horizontal space available for text. One place it doesn’t is in blockquoted text, there it seems to display fullsize and large images overwrite the rightside nav bar text.

Special characters in comments

Those of us who remember acceptance of ASCII-68 (a specification released in 1968) are often not clever enough to figure out all the nuances of today’s international character sets. Besides, most keyboards lack the keys for those characters, and that’s the real problem. Even if you use a non-ASCII but useful character like ° (as in 23°C) some optical character recognition software or cut and paste operation is likely to change it to 23oC or worse, 230C.

Nevertheless, there are very useful characters that are most reliably entered as HTML character entities:

Type this To get Notes
&amp; & Ampersand
&lt; < Less than sign

Left angle bracket

&bull; Bullet
&deg; ° Degree (Use with C and F, but not K (kelvins))
&#8304;

&#185;

&#178;

&#179;

&#8308;

¹

²

³

Superscripts (use 8304, 185, 178-179, 8308-8313 for superscript digits 0-9)
&#8320;

&#8321;

&#8322;

&#8323;

Subscripts (use 8320-8329 for subscript digits 0-9)
&pound; £ British pound
&ntilde; ñ For La Niña & El Niño
&micro; µ Mu, micro
&plusmn; ± Plus or minus
&times; × Times
&divide; ÷ Divide
&ne; Not equals
&nbsp; Like a space, with no special processing (i.e. word wrapping or multiple space discarding)
&gt; > Greater than sign

Right angle bracket

Generally not needed

Various operating systems and applications have mechanisms to let you directly enter character codes. For example, on Microsoft Windows, holding down ALT and typing 248 on the numeric keypad may generate the degree symbol. I may extend the table above to include these some day, but the character entity names are easier to remember, so I recommend them.

Latex markup

WordPress supports Latex. To use it, do something like:

$latex P = e\sigma AT^{4}$     (Stefan-Boltzmann's law)

$latex \mathscr{L}\{f(t)\}=F(s)$

to produce

P = e\sigma AT^{4}     (Stefan-Boltzmann’s law)

\mathscr{L}\{f(t)\}=F(s)

Linking to past comments

Each comment has a URL that links to the start of that comment. This is usually the best way to refer to comment a different post. The URL is “hidden” under the timestamp for that comment. While details vary with operating system and browser, the best way to copy it is to right click on the time stamp near the start of the comment, choose “Copy link location” from the pop-up menu, and paste it into the comment you’re writing. You should see something like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/15/central-park-in-ushcnv2-5-october-2012-magically-becomes-cooler-in-july-in-the-dust-bowl-years/#comment-1364445.

The “#<label>” at the end of the URL tells a browser where to start the page view. It reads the page from the Web, searches for the label and starts the page view there. As noted above, WordPress will create a link for you, you don’t need to add an <a> command around it.

One way to avoid the moderation queue.

Several keywords doom your comment to the moderation queue. One word, “Anthony,” is caught so that people trying to send a note to Anthony will be intercepted and Anthony should see the message pretty quickly.

If you enter Anthony as An<u>th</u>ony, it appears to not be caught,

so apparently the comparison uses the name with the HTML within it and

sees a mismatch.

78 thoughts on “Test

  1. It is true though, that before it had ever been encountered in the wild it was first created in a lab!

    https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787

    And while it may not have been “engineered” as such, the odds that it didn’t come from the Wuhan lab that was experimenting with the virus on live animals are millions to one! The lab has live infected species in cages and the chance of crossover, was intentional!

  2. …new building materials with higher melting points so that roads won’t crack in extreme temperatures…”

    Oh, good grief! *extreme eyeroll* *pound head on wall like Charlie Brown”

    But, melting points would relate to a road sliding off into the ditch, not the cracking thing. But really, the thing is, only pure materials, such as water or aluminum, have a melting point. With a mixture of materials, and a road surface is most certainly a mixture, the road would begin to soften, then it would begin to ooze, then it would begin to run, over a range of sometimes many degrees, in its change from solid to liquid. Now I have seen road surfaces where the black part looks like it has oozed and run and maybe even puddled a bit, and research on that kind of issue in road surfaces does and should go on all the time, but nobody will really notice it. If Cleveland has multiple consecutive summers where the temperature stays above 110°F for a significant amount of time, then they may call a road department in Las Vegas or Phoenix and ask what they have previously used in road surfaces. But then again they may not, it’s highly likely they already use a material in their road surfaces that would do just fine under those conditions. The CES sounds like a fun convention to browse, I would if it’s ever held in my neighborhood, but the person that wrote this article(? press release? whatever?) is clearly not a building or construction professional. Now, I am a registered mechanical engineer, I have worked with and around buildings for almost 40 years now, am I being too critical? Overly hard on this author? Anything I should take back or apologize for? I didn’t think so. Did that turn out the way I wanted it too?

  3. These YouTube embeds not working anymore according to instructions in the Rick Werne text above. YouTube converting copied URLs to the short form of youtu.be/xxxxxxx type, and the ending square bracket being converted on the fly to HEX code %5D which seems to munge the code to FUBAR !

    WordPress instructions to copy the embed code of the iFrame don’t work either, because YouTube has added a whole load of guff in the embed URL that WordPress didn’t expect now. This is a major FUBAR, I think….

    WordPress says ….
    https://www.wpmadesimple.org/supplementary-guides/youtube-video/

    But copied embed code looks like this ….

    [blockquote]
    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U&w=740&h=416%5D
    [/blockquote]

    All this accelerometer, gyroscope, encrypted-media etc guff is what confuses WordPress maybe. Did Anybody manage to embed a YouTube Video into WordPress anymore? So I will give it one last attempt and do this…

    [blockquote]
    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U%5D
    [/blockquote]

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U%5D

    Did it work ?

  4. OK so I got the wrong brackets to show proper formatting with my blockquote, blame spell correct for that…. I correct formatting manually in this post.

    Again:

    These YouTube embeds not working anymore according to instructions in the Rick Werne text above. YouTube converting copied URLs to the short form of youtu.be/xxxxxxx type, and the ending square bracket being converted on the fly to HEX code %5D which seems to munge the code to FUBAR !

    WordPress instructions to copy the embed code of the iFrame don’t work either, because YouTube has added a whole load of guff in the embed URL that WordPress didn’t expect now. This is a major FUBAR, I think….

    WordPress says ….
    https://www.wpmadesimple.org/supplementary-guides/youtube-video/

    But copied embed code looks like this ….

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U&w=740&h=416%5D

    All this accelerometer, gyroscope, encrypted-media etc guff is what confuses WordPress maybe. Did Anybody manage to embed a YouTube Video into WordPress anymore? So I will give it one last attempt and do this…

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U%5D

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U%5D

    I think WordPress daemon is still converting the ending square bracket to the special HEX code of %5D though, and how to get around this?

    Did it work ?

  5. Blast !

    Even the code in the blockquote is being changed by WordPress daemon….. Let me try another way…

    Again:

    These YouTube embeds not working anymore according to instructions in the Rick Werne text above. YouTube converting copied URLs to the short form of youtu.be/xxxxxxx type, and the ending square bracket being converted on the fly to HEX code %5D which seems to munge the code to FUBAR !

    WordPress instructions to copy the embed code of the iFrame don’t work either, because YouTube has added a whole load of guff in the embed URL that WordPress didn’t expect now. This is a major FUBAR, I think….

    WordPress says ….
    https://www.wpmadesimple.org/supplementary-guides/youtube-video/

    But copied embed code looks like this nowadays ….


    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U&w=740&h=416]

    All this accelerometer, gyroscope, encrypted-media etc guff is what confuses WordPress maybe. Did Anybody manage to embed a YouTube Video into WordPress anymore? So I will give it one last attempt and do this… just the URL, but without the protocol specifier.


    www.youtube.com/embed/7P5RW0Tmp-U

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/7P5RW0Tmp-U

    Did that do it?

    I think WordPress daemon is still converting the generated ending square bracket “]” to the special HEX code of %5D though, and how to get around this?

  6. I can’t seem to demonstrate the new YouTube embed code, because WordPress daemon is stripping out all the parameters, even when I do the blockquote or with “code” brackets.

    Maybe if I put it all between quotation marks?

    “[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U&w=560&h=315%5D

    Or you go to the video and right click and choose copy embed code and then paste to a notepad and see for yourself. Anyway the YouTube embed is no longer working because of some parameters change, or validation or something. WordPress plugin maybe needs updating? Can this be checked? I try again tomorrow perhaps.

  7. So the quotation marks idea was no good.

    Well that didn’t show up either, hmm 🤔

    How to show it ? I try to do screen capture and imgur…

    https://i.imgur.com/CedhCZ4_d.jpg?maxwidth=800&shape=thumb&fidelity=high

    Now you see the embed code?

    It’s nothing like the old YouTube embed code that WordPress plugin expects, and if you try to use old style iframe code then YouTube server doesn’t like that.

    I give up for today, and hope you can get new WordPress updated plugin that can cope with new changes to YouTube’s coding…. 🤔

  8. So according to a commenter in another thread you just have to copy URL (from address bar), and paste into comment in a new paragraph. All the foregoing, about embed codes, size parameters, iFrames, youtube prefix in squared brackets, etc., is seemingly old obsolete nonsense !!! Let’s see if that’s true.

    So I paste this (first line shown with “code” brackets):


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P5RW0Tmp-U

    Did it work this time at last?

    • Aha ! So it worked if the address bar URL is pasted in between a set of code chevron brackets like so:

      “”paste YouTube URL here””

      Yet not if directly pasted as simple URL, or it only then shows up as a hotlink. Curiouser and curiouser !!! Note that in the example I give I show chevrons in quotation marks, to prevent them disappearing.
      For this to work Commenter must NOT include these quotation marks. Was that understood?
      Seemingly for some users direct paste of address bar YouTube URL does work, depending upon their web browser, and operating system, which may automatically paste in hidden code brackets? Anyway it seems apparent that using iFrame or prefix squared bracket codes is all obsolete guff nowadays?

      One more time to confirm this, I follow my own instructions (NO quotation marks on chevrons!!!!)



      @Rick or Mods, if this worked OK then maybe amend the YouTube embed instructions accordingly?

  9. Final thoughts….

    No matter how I tried to demonstrate the code that worked, whenever I put the word “code” in the chevrons it disappeared, so lastly for clarity, I will use extra character _ underscore spacer. Remove all extra underscore spacers when you are doing it for real. I hope that Rick or Mods can actually show this code illustrated properly, should they decide to modify the YouTube instructions in this page preamble.

    __paste_YouTube_URL_here_

    I hope none of my illustration vanished this time 😎

    • It’s very hard to put chevrons in these comments without them vanishing. So final, final, final, try, I will substitute square brackets for chevroned brackets in my illustrated example. Commenters MUST of course use chevroned brackets when actually doing the deed !

      [code]paste_YouTube_URL_here[/code]

      Do NOT use short style ‘youtu.be’ URLs
      MUST be full www dot youtube dot com, with full https colon slash slash prefix
      Exactly as copied from browser address bar, and no trailing ampersand parameters !

      Phew ! 😅😵🤔

  10. To anyone who read my long saga of experiments in here; Thank you for reading thus far ! 🙂

    So it does appear that these results may be web-browser and/or Operating System specific. Some people may get away with merely copy & paste of YouTube FULL URL from the address bar of the relevant web page. Others may require to use the “code” brackets option. The short URL provided by right click on actual video player (youtu.be&etc) doesn’t work anymore in here. iFrame embed codes no longer work. YouTube has changed their API !!!

    What ALWAYS now (June 2020) works is this …

    Do like so…
    Commenters MUST of course use chevroned brackets instead of square brackets when actually doing the deed !
    Square brackets are only used here, so they won’t vanish in this comment, being mistaken for an actual command.

    [code]paste_YouTube_URL_here[/code]

    YouTube URL MUST be style : https colon slash slash www dot youtube dot com slash watch?v=xxxxxxxx

    Exactly as copied from browser address bar, and must delete any other trailing ampersand parameters !

    Thanks for all your patience, in reading this far, and I hope that Rick, Charles, and Mods/Editors would put that example in the site Help Tips, and remove all the old anachronistic stuff about copying iFrame embed codes and “[youtube ” prefixes etc. Mods/Editors may be able to illustrate the use of chevroned “code” brackets properly?

    Thanks everybody who troubled to read my long saga 😎

    • @Ron
      Do it with the chevroned “code” brackets same as with a YouTube video….. See end of my long saga above.

      https://www.tmc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/d-covid-19-positive-case-growth-trend-6-25-2020.png

      😎

  11. ████████╗██████╗░██╗░░░██╗███╗░░░███╗██████╗░
    ╚══██╔══╝██╔══██╗██║░░░██║████╗░████║██╔══██╗
    ░░░██║░░░██████╔╝██║░░░██║██╔████╔██║██████╔╝
    ░░░██║░░░██╔══██╗██║░░░██║██║╚██╔╝██║██╔═══╝░
    ░░░██║░░░██║░░██║╚██████╔╝██║░╚═╝░██║██║░░░░░
    ░░░╚═╝░░░╚═╝░░╚═╝░╚═════╝░╚═╝░░░░░╚═╝╚═╝░░░░░

    ██████╗░░█████╗░██████╗░░█████╗░
    ╚════██╗██╔══██╗╚════██╗██╔══██╗
    ░░███╔═╝██║░░██║░░███╔═╝██║░░██║
    ██╔══╝░░██║░░██║██╔══╝░░██║░░██║
    ███████╗╚█████╔╝███████╗╚█████╔╝
    ╚══════╝░╚════╝░╚══════╝░╚════╝░

  12. The Virus/Lockdown Scam

    If masks work, then why are we anti-social distancing?
    If anti-social distancing works, then why are we wearing masks?
    If masks and anti-social distancing work, then why are our businesses closed?
    If we can stand in line in a grocery store, then why can’t we stand in line to vote?

    Because it’s not about the virus. It never was.

    For those who always point at the medical profession who “mask up”…
    Surgeons and nurses wear masks to protect against bacterial infections. The evidence for that protection is minimal. Viruses are so small that 100,000,000 (100 Million) of them will fit (if only one layer thick) on the period at the end of this sentence. If you’re donning a medical mask or worse yet: a diaper mask, do you think 4 periods might get in, out, around or through the mask?

    The British Government has confirmed that Covid- 19 is harmless to the vast majority of people:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adj8MCsZKlg

    In this clip from the Downing Street Corona Briefing on May 11th, Chris Whitty – Britain’s Chief Medical Officer – says that, to most people, the coronavirus is entirely harmless:
    Most people will never get it;
    Most of the people who get it won’t ever experience symptoms;
    Most of the people who experience symptoms won’t need medical care;
    Most of the people who need medical care won’t be need emergency or critical care. And even the tiny percentage of people who need who DO need critical care will survive, regardless of risk factors or medical history.

    To those constantly bleating about how surgeons and nurses wear masks during surgery read this:
    https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002929.pub3/full

    Disposable surgical face masks for preventing surgical wound infection in clean surgery
    Surgical face masks were originally developed to contain and filter droplets containing microorganisms expelled from the mouth and nasopharynx of healthcare workers during surgery, thereby providing protection for the patient. However, there are several ways in which surgical face masks could potentially contribute to contamination of the surgical wound, e.g. by incorrect wear or by leaking air from the side of the mask due to poor string tension.

    Objectives
    To determine whether the wearing of disposable surgical face masks by the surgical team during clean surgery reduces postoperative surgical wound infection.

    Key results
    Overall, we found very few studies and identified no new trials for this latest update. We analyzed a total of 2106 participants from the three studies we found. All three studies showed that wearing a face mask during surgery neither increases nor decreases the number of wound infections occurring after surgery. We conclude that there is no clear evidence that wearing disposable face masks affects the likelihood of wound infections developing after surgery. (and they certainly won’t stop viruses.)

    In May 2020, The CDC said the exact same thing:
    “In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). One study evaluated the use of masks among pilgrims from Australia during the Hajj pilgrimage and reported no major difference in the risk for laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection in the control or mask group (33). Two studies in university settings assessed the effectiveness of face masks for primary protection by monitoring the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza among student hall residents for 5 months (9,10). The overall reduction in ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza cases in the face mask group was not significant in either studies (9,10). Study designs in the 7 household studies were slightly different: 1 study provided face masks and P2 respirators for household contacts only (34), another study evaluated face mask use as a source control for infected persons only (35), and the remaining studies provided masks for the infected persons as well as their close contacts (11–13,15,17). None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35…”

    https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article?fbclid=IwAR30tcZl3JaBoojadvOvpfbxKZwyUs8dT6l4go-k_4vEwaOAmSq7HfCaJOU#tnF2

    As a last thought, consider this:
    Sweden never had a lockdown and never forced people to wear masks or anything else, they never forced anti-social distancing on the entire population (other than moving restaurant tables a bit further apart) and they never gave up the idea that sane adults can work out their own level of risk and behave appropriately. Consequently, the Swedes have maintained all the measures of civilized life and have not wrecked their economy in the name of “keeping you safe.” For the record, a tiny minority of Swedes wear masks but they are mainly foreigners or tourists and most Swedes think wearing masks in public outside of medical necessity is idiotic. Sweden now has one of the lowest rates of deaths for the virus which is now in single figures. In the last 24 hours, Sweden recorded just 9 deaths from the virus out of a population of well over 10 million.

    Don’t take my word for any of this…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92R0bnW0S_4

    What’s REALLY Going On in Sweden (No Lockdown)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI7nrqH_YnE

    SWEDEN DURING CORONAVIRUS – REAL FOOTAGE

    • “If masks work, then why are we anti-social distancing?
      If anti-social distancing works, then why are we wearing masks?”

      That sounds as logical to me as asking why, if overcoats work, do people use umbrellas?
      Or if boots work, why step over puddles?

  13. (Preface for “Watts Up With That”: I’m testing character-sets, esp. those for the ancient languages that I used in this draft, um, rant. I haven’t yet seen any push-back in WUWT to the globally decreed pronunciation of the former Hurricane Isaias. I also need to test my unconventional reference-marks, which I use instead of numbers to enable me to move referring text around with a programming-text editor, without manually renumbering or dependence on word-processors like MS Word (how many WUWT readers have looked at the wretchedly verbose and cluelessly redundant translations of MS-Word features to HTML for Web sites?  Oh!  And using Unicode to greatly expand the variety in reference-marks can provide light distractions during my writings on serious or unpleasant topics.)

    I say “[bleep!]” on the condescending direction from the “mainstream media” on how we deplorables should pronounce the approaching storm’s name:

    Phonetically, it’s pronounced ees-ah-EE-ahs. There are different ways to pronounce Isaias but for the sake of a named storm, the National Hurricane Center has informed meteorologists this pronunciation will be the standard. [×]

    Sooo, the language-majority in the Continental U.S.A., i.e., native speakers of English, many of whom opened an Old Testament for their first time decades ago, and have continued to do so countless times since then, are expected to change their pronunciation of the name of perhaps the greatest prophet in the O.T., all because some faceless globalist weathercrats say we must?  “It’s standard!“  Really, now?  That’s not how we pronounce its written name around here–the state off whose coast the one-time hurricane is whirling right now!

    Isaias is the Spanish and Portuguese version of the name Isaiah, more commonly used in Latin American countries like Argentina that tend to have a more European and Latin influence. [….] The name is not common in Mexico, the Caribbean or Central America, according to mynamestats.com. You likely won’t meet too many people with that name unless you travel to South America and parts of Europe.

    So we in the U.S.A. near the path of this hurricane must pander to the pride of distant foreigners who inhabit other hemispheres, and are nowhere near the track of this hurricane?  Because it’s mostly Argentinans who happen to name their infants after major prophets in the Old-Testament, and that somehow gives them world-widedibs’ on the pronunciation?  To Hey-ell with that!

    In point of fact, “Isaias” is exactly the spelling that’s attested in St. Jerome‘s Biblia Vulgata [✞]. It’s not merely “Latin American“; it’s honest-to-God Latin, yall!  Roman Empire, roads, legions, gladiators, &c. Jerome would’ve gotten it from his original translation of Hebrew documents, completed in A.D. 405 [#]. His Latin spelling is consistent with the Greek spelling «῾Ησαΐας» (or less meticulously as «Ησαιας»), then pronounced something like English “Hā-să-yē’-ăs” (or “Ā-sī-ăs”) in the preChristian Septuagint Old Testament (a.k.a. LXX) [#]. [#]. The name in the Vulgate has come to be pronounced by English-speakers more-or-less as “Ē-sī’-yăs“.  English-speaking Protestants follow a translation into Early-Modern English that established the spelling “Isaiah ” [❀], and pronounce it as “Eye-say’-yah”.

    The name means “God is my salvation” [×]

    Nooo, the name does not mean a day-amn thing in LXX Greek, nor in its corresponding Latin. So certainly not anything in its barbarized descendant languages Spanish or Portuguese. It has the claimed meaning only in Hebrew: “ ישׁעיהוּ   ” (i.e., yod shin-with-shin-dot ayin yod he shuruk). I’m no expert, but daring to guess pronunciation something like 4-or-5-syllables for the Hebrew: “Yə-shæ-(ə)-yɑ-hū” [✡]. Which for what it’s worth, more-or-less agrees with Wikipedia‘s “Yəshạʻyā́hû” [✡✡].

    But “ees-ah-EE-ahs“?  Not no way, not no how! 

    ——–
    Note × : “Tropical Storm Isaias forms–here’s how to pronounce it”.
    By Gabriella Nuñez, Multimedia Producer. Published: July 29, 2020, 2:25 pm. Updated: July 30, 2020, 7:09 am.
    https://www.clickorlando.com/features/2020/07/29/system-in-tropics-likely-to-become-isaias-heres-how-to-pronounce-it/. This silly “ClickOrlando.com” site-name is the Internet home of the long-established local-t.v. channel 6 (1954), owned by the (Katharine Meyer) Graham Media Group, whose flagship property was once the Washington Post.

    Note ✞: It’s awfully tempting, nowadays, to translate Latin Biblia Vulgata as “Bible of the Deplorables“. More literally, the title’s easily misunderstood word, a participle of the verb vulg·o, -are, simply means “common”, e.g., in knowledge or usage (altho’ it can indicate “the common people” among the empire’s class-structure). The New World, the “Deplorables”, and their Walmarts would be a millennium and more in the future. Despite his scholarly talents, in translating from the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts available to him (A.D. 390–405), Jerome kept his Latin simple, to assist readers with only elementary literacy. “St. Jerome”. By Louis Saltet (1910). The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8.

    Note # : “Versions of the Bible”. By Anthony Maas. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm. Not even modern Jewish archivists have Hebrew manuscripts that are older than those which would’ve been available for Jerome to study. The Massoretes didn’t begin their efforts until the A>D. 6th Century.

    Note ❀ : William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, or the “Authorized Version” (1611), whatevah!  I’ll leave it to Protestants herein to sort it out.

    Note ✡ : I used a version of the hardcopy bilingual dictionary (focused on Biblical or ancient Hebrew) by Gesenius (its English is a later translation from the German of Gesenius).

    Note ✡✡ : Most readers herein will probably want on-line sources, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah; the pronunciation is isolated in(to) its “note a”. The “š” in Wikip. is simply the Romanized-Slavic spelling of E.-Europe for “sh”, into which I transliterated it above. The ‘ ʻ ’ that’s shown 2 characters later is typewriter-era technology for transliterating the Semitic consonant ayin (‘ ע ’); conventional wisdom describes it as originally a sort of strangled gasp, but later a ‘glottal stop’; or it can be transcribed as the short vowel ‘e’.  Inexplicably, the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906, as hosted on line, fails to show the spelling in Hebrew: “ISAIAH”. By Emil G. Hirsch, Thomas Kelly Cheyne, Isidore Singer, Isaac Broydé. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah.

  14. And here is the table of records for Death Valley

    So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

    Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

  15. So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

    Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

  16. And here is the table of records for D… Valley

    So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

    Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

  17. And here is the table of records for Death Valley:

    So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

    Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

  18. And here is the table…

    So of the 30 hottest days in the last 110 years, over half were recorded in the last 20 years, and a third in the last 10.

    Only 6 were recorded before 1960, all in the same 6 day period in 1913.

    • @J Mac
      Do it with the chevroned “code” brackets ….. See end of my long saga above, and no use any trailing parameters.



      😎

  19. Image:
    “https://static.wixstatic.com/media/c266e2_34cd873fa95e482197dc9095ec15f660~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_338,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/Dia2_JPG.webp”

  20. Trial and error:
    “https://2sj8jt43nx8s3fh0fpaz8wf7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dia1-768×432.jpg”

  21. Every statistic about Covid-19 in the British media is a lie

    Up to 90% of people who test positive for Covid barely carry any virus and are not contagious.

    It has been revealed that the standard tests being used in the US to diagnose Covid-19 cases are far too sensitive, with the vast majority of people marked down as being positive are turning out to be negative. Top US virologists have been stunned by revelations about the laxity of the US Covid testing regimen. Tests that deliver a simple binary “positive or negative” result are not fit for purpose, as they tell us nothing about the contagiousness of each person.

    Data from New York, Nevada and Massachusetts shows that when the amount of the virus found in a person is taken into account, up to 90% of people who have tested positive should have been negative, as they are carrying only tiny amounts of the virus, are not contagious, pose no risk to others, and have no need to isolate. This means that only a fraction of the daily “cases” being reported so hysterically in the mainstream media are actual, bona fide Covid-19 sufferers, and need treatment and to separate themselves from others.

    So how could this have happened? The answer has to do with the sensitivity of PCR (Polymerase chain reaction) tests for Covid, which it turns out can be ramped up according to the taste of the testing companies. Most testing companies have chosen the outrageously high sensitivity limit of 40 PCR cycles – meaning that the DNA in a sample is exponentially increased 40 times in order to amplify its signal. By using such a ridiculously sensitive test means that the faintest traces of a dead virus, or even leftovers from previous infections (such as the common cold), can result in a positive. Professor Juliet Morrison, a University of California virologist, said that even a limit of 35 PCR cycles is too high, let alone 40. She said she was “shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive.” But apparently, pretty much everyone in the US Covid brain trust took exactly that on faith.

    So the scale of the pandemic ‘problem’ is actually much smaller than we’ve been led to believe – about a tenth of what all the politicians and media have been using to justify the lockdowns, the quarantines, the mass testing. Some may be shocked that the scale of the problem is so much smaller than assumed. But for a seasoned ignorer of any and all statistics that contain Covid so-called ‘cases,’ there are no surprises here. The truth is, there was never any reason to be confident in such figures. The FDA has only now been forced to concede that they have no idea how different testing companies determine which the positive and negative tests are: they just accept whatever data they are given.

    What these findings bring is absolute assurance that the testing to this point has been an utter waste of time, and that not one statistic concerning this pandemic – from cases to deaths to infection rates – can be believed. But it should not have taken some journalist to ask the right question to discover this: a bit of common sense would have been enough. What is it going to take for these professional virologists to drop their assumptions and models, and just start acting based on the facts at hand?

    Scrap test and trace

    It’s a virus so deadly, you need a test to tell whether you have it or not. So goes the refrain of many lockdown skeptics, “Covidiots” (so beloved by the Daily Mail) and anti-maskers. Something has gone not just wrong, but totally haywire when the might of the world’s scientific establishment is trained with the zeal of a Witchfinder General on one particular microscopic particle. Not even a particularly dangerous particle; the latest data show it is the eighth most common cause of death in England, and it doesn’t even make the top ten in Wales.

    Meanwhile, in Wuhan, the original source of this disease, the pool parties are in full swing. They don’t seem to be too worried about PCR tests or contact tracing, or even the virus itself. The Chinese government says that their supreme lockdown was so awesome that they now have zero Covid: a biological impossibility. Maybe they just stopped testing, and decided to get on with their lives. Everyone else should take a leaf out of their book.

  22. TEST OF SPELLING, FORMATTING, AND LENGTH:

    Sooner or later, a climate activist Democrat president will occupy the Oval Office. When this happens, everything Donald Trump ever did while he was president will be quickly and completely erased.

    Suppose, for purposes of argument, Joe Biden becomes that climate activist Democrat president. If Biden wants to achieve an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 — President Obama’s original goal — then massive spending on Green New Deal projects combined with a carbon pricing scheme cannot and will not get the job done.

    Fossil fuels are just too convenient as an energy resource and too demand-inelastic for America to reach the 80% reduction target within thirty years using the plan the Democrats are now proposing.

    If Biden is serious about an 80% reduction by 2050 — a.k.a. ‘Net Zero’ because it is really the same thing — then he must impose a government-managed system of carbon fuel rationing which directly limits the quantities of fossil fuels that Americans can import, produce, refine, distribute, and consume.

    The only possible means of reducing America’s carbon emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary is to use the power of government in ways that make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.

    How could this be done?

    Here is an alternative plan for reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. The plan is entitled the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP).

    The plan uses a series of Executive Orders which combine existing provisions of the Clean Air Act with existing provisions of national security legislation to create an integrated regulatory approach for increasing the cost of all carbon fuels and for systematically restricting their future availability.

    In short, the SSCECP uses the power of the federal government to create and enforce an artificial shortage of carbon fuels while directly raising their prices and directly reducing their import, production, distribution, and consumption.

    The SSCECP employs EPA-administered carbon pollution fines as the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. The plan supplies a powerful incentive for the state governments to participate in directly regulating America’s carbon emissions by assigning them the great bulk of the revenues produced from the EPA’s carbon pollution fines.

    A joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) is established to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.

    In addition, the plan keeps the import, production, and distribution of carbon fuels in private hands. Rather than nationalizing the oil and gas industry, the plan enlists private corporations as contracted agents in managing the government’s energy rationing programs. The government also guarantees a steady and healthy rate return from the sale of all carbon fuels produced by those private corporations which choose to participate.

    Here are the major phases of the plan. The start and end dates listed for each major phase assume a climate activist Democrat is elected president in 2020.

    SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — Major Phases:

    Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.)
    Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021)
    Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022)
    Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049)
    Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.)

    Here are the details of the plan:</

    SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — Detailed Description:.

    Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.)

    — File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007)
    — Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009)
    — Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012)
    — Establish a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020)

    Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021)

    II.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase II

    II.A.1 — Issue an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
    II.A.2 — Assign a joint task force of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), the US Department of Homeland Security (US-DHS), and the US Department of Energy (US-DOE) to manage the declared emergency.
    II.A.3 — Create a joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
    II.A.4 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to define and implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
    II.A.5 — Establish a public relations outreach program to explain and defend the actions being taken.

    II.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase II

    II.B.1 — Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
    II.B.2 — Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
    II.B.3 — Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
    II.B.4 — Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
    II.B.5 — Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.

    II.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase II

    II.C.1 — Research and publish a provisional system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing.
    II.C.2 — Defend the provisional system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.

    Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022)

    III.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase III

    III.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
    III.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency.
    III.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.
    III.A.4 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program needed to explain and defend the anti-carbon actions being taken.

    III.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase III

    III.B.1 — Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
    III.B.2 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
    III.B.3 — Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
    III.B.4 — Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
    III.B.5 — Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.

    III.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase III

    III.C.1 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
    III.C.2 — Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
    III.C.3 — Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
    III.C.4 — Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
    III.C.5 — Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.

    Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049)

    IV.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase IV

    IV.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
    IV.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency.
    IV.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in enforcing carbon emission regulations.
    IV.A.4 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.
    IV.A.5 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program as needed to further explain and further defend the anti-carbon actions being taken.

    IV.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase IV

    IV.B.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
    IV.B.2 — Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states.
    IV.B.3 — Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
    IV.B.4 — Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
    IV.B.5 — Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
    IV.B.6 — Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
    IV.B.7 — Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.

    IV.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase IV

    IV.C.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
    IV.C.2 — Commence operation of production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
    IV.C.3 — Monitor the compliance of fossil fuel producers and distributors with their CFCB production control agreements.
    IV.C.4 — Monitor the profit levels of fossil fuel producers and distributors for conformance with the CFCB’s guaranteed profit schedule.
    IV.C.5 — Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts.

    Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.)

    — The President issues a proclamation that the target of an 80% reduction has been achieved.
    — The President, the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program as necessary to maintain the 80% goal.
    — If a determination is reached that the government’s system of carbon control measures must continue beyond 2050, existing agreements with the states and with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors are extended with appropriate modifications.
    — Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures must continue beyond 2050.

    Remarks:

    Once again, a key point here is that not another word of new legislation is needed to enable this plan. The entire plan is implemented through a series of Executive Orders covered under existing environmental and national security legislation and under constitutionally legal Executive Branch authorities.

    However, the elephant in the room is this …. Would the voting public accept the personal and economic sacrifices which go with imposing government-mandated, strictly-enforced anti-carbon measures?

    If the Democrats are truly serious about greatly reducing America’s carbon emissions by 2050, they must acknowledge that it can’t be done without using the full power of the federal government in coercively forcing those emission reductions.

  23. I read the French twittosphère A LOT. I mean like thousands of tweets. That’s the virtue of TT, you can read tons of sh*t in a short time, unlike most other social websites and blogs where you waste a lot of time reading tiny amounts of sh*t. (The Web is mostly sh*t, but that’s instructive. The TV series “Scrubs” had a song about sh*t and how you can learn essentially anything from it.)

    In the French TT, a lot of criticism of Dr Didier Raoult (a man that I strongly dislike BTW, he embodies what’s wrong in academia and science publishing) gets criticized A LOT for his white coat in interviews and videos done in his IHU (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire). Apparently Raoult’s white coat hit a nerve, notably among French scientists.

    Well, duh. I guess when you have a white coat you must wear in some rooms, you get used to it and wear it whenever you are in the IHU. It could be used to impress morons though.

    But we have never seen him in a white coat elsewhere.

    Unlike these “scientists”!

    https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/scimarch-debateover-chalkboard.jpg

  24. The calculation of ECS depends on the atmospheric model of the greenhouse gas effect. They’ve always used the same core model; derived from Manabe and Wetherald 1967 amended by Held and Soden 2000. This is the so-called ‘simple physics’ behind man-made climate change.

    The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelenghts. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from highter, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. The temporary imbalance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and heat emission to space, causes the planet to warm until planeteary energy balance is restored.
    Hansen et al.; 2011; Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011

    more CO2 in the atmosphere causes the atmosphere to be more opaque to infrared. That’s a falsifiable test. The data says:
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SE6uHnbnXjs/X4FotpWTRgI/AAAAAAAAB5Q/lKdr_9R8AaA-rsj_dTDIv2V-vn3WhMDvwCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/ghge_2_optical-thickness-of-atmosphere-is-unchanged.png

    No. The optical thickness of the atmosphere to CO2 greenhouse gas is unchanged since 1950 for over 70 years since CO2 increased in the atmosphere from 315ppm to 415ppm today.

    So the core assumption of the greenhouse gas effect is wrong. What of the predictions? The first prediction is that man-made global warming happens because a change in CO2 is “reducing emission of heat energy to space“. We can measure that too, and have been; at least since 1985.

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kk3KTal9dHg/X4FsaSKlqRI/AAAAAAAAB5s/LhcX-vRsDGUQ3cTwXFp-Guf7d7vnG3SJACLcBGAsYHQ/s0/ghge_3_OLR-1985-2018.png

    Far from reducing: the heat energy emitted to space increased since 1985 by a whole 1.5 W/m². The first falsifiable prediction of the core model shows the greenhouse gas effect failing.

    In fact, it increases as a reflection of climate warming (notice the fall 1991-1994 due to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo cooling earth’s climate).

    It injected more particulate into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C in the years 1991–93
    Wikipedia

    So OLR emitted to space is not a cause of warming. It simply reflects warming which already happened. The climate consensus at the IPCC are clear that humanity causes 90% of modern climate change. For humanity to have – caused 90% of modern climate change – OLR to space must’ve fallen in line with the mechanics of the greenhouse gas simulation.

    A core assumption and a core prediction by the climate consensus greenhouse gas model is wrong. The model is falsified. Those claiming it is settled science promote pseudoscience.

  25. Anthony …

    I use a Mac and for several weeks the WUWT platform has become almost unusable.

    Using the Mac’s native Safari browser, when I click into a post all is well for a minute or so as I read the text.

    Then the spinning orb appears and almost all the post above and below where I’ve got to disappears and only the grey background is visible.

    I can reload to continue but the problem reappears after a minute or so.

    I instead try using Firefox and Chrome. With both I can see the post’s text but no messages at all, and instead a spinning orb as the browsers try to load content.

    At least with Safari I can keep reloading and creep my way through the messages if I think they’re sufficiently interesting to keep making the effort.

    One thing I notice is that in Firefox and Chrome, a locked strip ad appears at the bottom of the screen, covering the in-house cookie message. Locked messages/ads shouldn’t appear in the same position in a browser.

    In Safari, this ad never appears at all.

    All my browsers are working fine with every other website in the world, and I click into a hundred or so every day.

    I’ve been a WUWT reader for close to a decade and never had these problems.

    My suspicion is one of the refreshed ad sources on the site, probably the static position one at the bottom of the page, is using corrupt code that’s stalling the browsers.

    Mac Safari users are an abundant audience. I’ve seen no other messages regarding the problem but even sending this message is difficult as it’s impossible in Firefox or Chrome and Safari often stalls (only on WUWT while sites on a dozen or so simultaneous browser tabs are working fine) so maybe none of the affected readers have been able to send a message.

    • I’ve no idea if my message above prompted it but this morning I load WUWT and everything is working perfectly on all browsers. Fantastic and well done.

      I also note that a lot of advertising has disappeared including at the bottom of pages, and I hope this won’t reduce the meagre income that WUWT generates to compensate for all your hard work.

      I also note that when using Firefox or Chrome an ad appears at the top of the page above the WUWT masthead. The ad doesn’t appear in Safari. Regardless, all three browsers are loading all content rapidly and nothing is stalling.

      Anyways, this is a bit of feedback to let you know that the problem is solved and I can again enjoy the pleasure of browsing up and down through posts and messages without worrying how long it will last.

  26. Tesla’s Supercharger Network In Australia Costs Nearly Double Than Filling Your Car With Gas

    Using the Tesla Supercharger network, it is now costlier to recharge your vehicle than it is to gas up at a traditional gas station, according to a new report from Australia-based WhichCar. The news came as a result of a “recent price increase” to use the Superchargers and “incorrect fuel figures on the Tesla website.”

    This puts an end to Tesla’s claims that recharging its vehicles offered savings versus traditional internal combustion engine vehicles.

    “According to Tesla the cost of charging a Tesla Model 3 is $7 per 100km compared with $12 for a rival petrol car,” WhichCar notes, before revealing the estimate uses “at least three incorrect figures.” The report disputes “how much electricity a Tesla Model 3 uses, the cost of electricity at a Tesla Supercharger and the price of petrol.”

    It also notes Tesla’s increase for its Supercharger to 52 cents per kilowatt-hour. The article calculates this recharging “even the most efficient” Model 3 Standard Range would cost $9.78 per 100km using a Supercharger. It then notes that BMW’s 330i costs $8 per 100km to fuel, assuming the country’s average cost of premium unleaded at $1.38 – a figure sourced from the country’s government. The BMW consumes 5.8 litres per 100km, which is below Tesla’s estimates of 7.0 litres per 100km. This means the BMW is actually 18% cheaper to fuel than a Tesla is to recharge at a Supercharger. If you run the same calculations with the hybrid-powered Lexus IS300h, the results are even more profound. The Lexus cost winds up about 31% lower than the Tesla charged using a Supercharger.

    Tesla first used its Supercharger network, promising “free” electricity and charging, to lure customers into the idea of an all electric future when the company first surfaced. Gradually, the allure of the idea wore off for the company and they began charging for use of the network. Like many other promises made by Tesla (solar roof tiles, 1 million robotaxis, full self driving), the concept of the Supercharger network looks like it has just run face first into a much needed reality check.

    https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/teslas-now-more-expensive-to-charge-than-petrol-cars

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *