I am not convinced that having a vocal blockchain skeptic (Mr Gerard has written the book "Attack of the 50ft blockchain" and has written many articles critical of blockchain and distributed ledger technologies) as an arbiter of Wikipedia pages on cryptocurrencies and blockchain is necessarily a good idea. For example, Mr Gerard will refuse to allow the addition of well-sourced articles on popular projects even though they are reliably sourced in major crypto news publications. As you can imagine, much crypto news doesn't reach the mainstream press, so this blocks a lot of useful information appearing on Wikipedia.
Also, major projects, such as IOTA, don't even have a Wikipedia page or stub, despite the project having a multitude of academic papers and reliably sourced news. Mr Gerard will say this is because of the huge amount of spam on the pages, but other crypto pages, and non-crypto pages, have plenty of spam and they still manage to appear on the site.
As an analogy, imagine if climate deniers were in control of Wikipedia's climate change pages.
Mr Gerard simply has too much influence on Wikipedia's crypto pages. There is certainly a crypto spam problem on Wikipedia, but it seems like he is actually censoring information, which for those interested in crypto, is somewhat ironic.
This isn't only happening there, a lot of Wikipedia pages basically have someone revert a lot of changes they don't agree with, while you could bring this up on the talk page this takes a lot of time and knowledge about how Wikipedia works, for more controversial pages this often works out that those whom have most time to spend get to decide on the direction and point of view of the article. This might even be just small rewordings and copy edits to put something in a more or less favourable light.
One of the downsides of Wikipedia's methods of conflict resolution is controversial articles select for editors with strong feelings.
I'm largely disinterested about cryptocurrency, so maybe I'd be an ideal neutral arbiter in arguments about such articles. But for the same reason, I'm not motivated to do the tiring political work that would involve.
If you write a negative book about a collection of topics and make it diverse enough not to have to go in detail you can tailor it such that wikipedia becomes the perfect promotion vehicle. It has to be negative since removing positive material is much easier than either writing it or removing negative material. (There is often some sub-human narcissist volunteer willing to preserve negativity.)
Sober neutral voices get nothing done. You have to be extreamly biased
It's literally never not amazing to have crypto fans claim not being a crypto fan is a conflict of interest, BUT owning the crypto they're promoting isn't a COI.
GP appears to have diagnosed himself with chronic metal poisoning, and doctor-shopped until he found a physician willing to make his self-diagnosis official and prescribe all the oral chelators he convinced himself he needed a priori.
Chronic heavy metal toxicity is a subject rife with quackery and pseudoscience, especially when people start talking about chronic poisoning undetectable by conventional medicine. It's best to be careful whose story you believe. It's a hot button issue for me as a person "on the spectrum" because ill-informed parents subject their kids to Cutler protocol and other fringe chelation therapies under the belief that they're "curing" their kids of autism, and causing more health problems than they fix (chelators are themselves pretty toxic!)
Here are some resources about metal toxicity pseudoscience:
I had blood and urine and hair with high mercury levels - but according to you remote comment diagnosing "specialist" I'm a psycho.
Also, my jaw was in a bad state - a needle meant for mucosa injection went right deep in - in exactly all the places where I had had amalgam fillings. Nothing ever showed up in x-ray - which is normal, bone damage shows up in x-ray only when it's extreme (although a needle easily penetrating bone already is quite extreme). The doctor injected DMPS (chelator), the jaw healed.
Also, an double-size right-side thyroid with a nodule, stable for 2.5 decades, within half a year completely disappeared to the great amazement of my endocrinologist who had recommended surgery. There was lots of activity in the tissue around that area in my neck starting after I got chelation.
Warts on my feet, getting more and more numerous over the decades, completely gone.
Winter depression, psoriasis, colds (before diagnosis lasting the entire winter, getting longer and longer), eye issues, comprehension issues, digestion was bad and now is wonderful, - a long list of stuff JUST GONE NOW.
Look in a mirror for who is the quack, not to mention that with your accusation and remote diagnosis you are being quite an asshole.
The doctor I'm seeing is a researcher at a university clinic and always talks in "studies" and is very careful, never making any promises, always cautious with recommendations, preferring to do as little as possible. When I went there he said I must have something else, the levels of mercury found justify chelation treatment but are not high enough to explain all my problems. He never found anything else and improvement was far exceeding expectations. With chronic poisoning most of the stuff is hidden and comes out slowly, so yes, lab measurements usually cannot show it, I was "lucky" I had such highly elevated values. The doctor also makes no money - the university clinic charges a tiny bit (Germany, not US, it's next to nothing because there is nothing expensive, no medical imaging, just a few cheap lab tests, the chelators, DMPS and DMSA, some minor additions, are extra but inexpensive).
That depends heavily on where you live - CA, WA, NY have a high percentage of renewables - and even then, most fossil fuel power plants are still more efficient than an ICE car.
So much confirmation bias. I haven't looked into Germany, but the French heatwave -- which is mentioned in the article -- has almost the same record temperatures as were recorded in 1930, 1870, 1773 and 1718, when, presumably, there was much less CO2. [1]
The other day's record-setting France temperature of 115F was recorded in Toulouse, where the temperature rose for one hour above the record set in 1923. Hardly conclusive proof of anything. [2]
In Paris, the heatwave's hottest day was 96F. Paris has had 164 days since the year 1900 hotter than that, including seven days over 100F.
These extremes are hardly new. Weather is not climate. Stop giving power and money to scaremongering media and politicians.
Looking further back, here is reconstructed temperature estimates of the past few thousand years. This additional context shows the dramatic change that is occurring:
The site you're linking to is junk. Your comments about records ignores the fact that the hottest record setting days are not distributed randomly, but are in fact clustered around the turn of the 21st century. On top of that, the overall science is not solely based on temperature records, but on a number of different phenomena which you completely ignore.
TL;DR, the polar ice caps are melting, as predicted by scientists; the intensity of tropical storms is increasing, as predicted by scientists; the average mean temperature has been rising steadly, as also predicted. You fail to account for these things with any alternative theory that fits the facts, and your claim that it is all "scaremongering" is dubious at best. Especially since the world's largest companies are all petrochemical and have an invested interest in creating as much FUD about climate change as possible.
I'm not sure why you are "excited" to see this release. For those of us who create Wordpress sites for clients, this is a mess. A comparison of Gutenberg to any of the major Page builders (Visual Composer, Divi, Enfold etc.) shows that Gutenberg is simply not ready for production. Features are missing, and there simply isn't the finesse you get from a page builder.
Gutenberg should have been offered as an extension, leaving core Wordpress alone. Now, we are going into the situation where an inferior page builder is part of core. That can only cause trouble.
I hate to start this off this way but this comment makes me feel like you're either a very novice WP user or simply a designer that likes to advertise themselves as a dev but doesn't actually do a lot of coding. Divi and Visual Composer are both absolute messes from every aspect except for ease of use and they're incredibly bloated even for simple page layouts. Everything ends up as an inline style, the actual load time for pages is astronomical, and making any kind of theme changes are impossibly inconsistent because these page builders inextricably link all styles to the HTML instead of in proper CSS where they belong.
Gutenberg, on the other hand, while not perfect, is several times better than these systems, in my opinion. There's still some messiness to it but it's much easier to set up a theme for a client and have comfort that, when you come back to edit something for them, they haven't borked it all to hell requiring you to dig through a slow and clunky interface just to reset a font-color.
The whole point of WordPress is that you don't need to do much coding, so that point is moot. The vast majority of WordPress developers are designers or non-technical people who either don't know how to code, or who can hack a bit of code now and then.
When I make a site for a client I have to balance many options 1) how fast can I do it 2) including how many bits and bobs do I have to add in to even make it work 3) What it will look like 4) will the client be able to update it afterwards. Speed and underlying tech is way down the list.
I generally use Enfold [1] to build client sites. Divi's interface is too complex and slow to navigate. VC is faster, and I have used it on occasion. Gutenberg also has a slow interface. Gutenberg also requires the download of loads of blocks or block packages, which surely bloat the page, and cause confusion. I've tried Atomic blocks [2] etc, which only works well when you pair it with the Atomic Blocks theme. But sometimes I might need a different blocks. So now, you've now got multiple hero sections, each with different parameters, css and coding. That's bloat and inconsistency.
Gutenberg simply doesn't give designers the level of control over existing page builders. Read this comparison of Gutenberg vs Elementor [3]. I don't use Elementor, but the author concludes -- like me -- that Gutenberg is no match for exiting page builders. To paraphrase, he concludes that Gutenberg is for unsophisticated users who are creating single page layouts with low precision.
BTW, I don't know what themes or clients you have, but Enfold allows all the elements to be locked so that the clients can't mess with the layout. It's also very easy for them to login and see the page structure so that they know where they are. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's far better than Gutenberg.
IMHO, instead of finding out what developers actually wanted and were using, WordPress decided to roll its own system, which would be fine if it was optional. But, now that it's core, it's just an inferior, anti-competitive PITA.
>The vast majority of WordPress developers are designers or non-technical people who either don't know how to code, or who can hack a bit of code now and then.
That's what I thought. There's a reason why WordPress has a reputation for being insanely insecure and a terrible platform and it mostly has to do with the fact that it's made things easy for people who have no idea what they're doing. Existing page builders allow you to make something easily while completely ignoring the affect of page load times, proper syntactic code, and quality. They're meant for people who don't invest the time to actually learn what they're doing so they can throw crap together that they can charge clients who don't know any better.
We had it as an extension for a year and a half, and in that time it became the fastest growing plugin in WP's history. User tests also showed significant issues with our current editor approach and much better results with Gutenberg enabled, that's why some hosts have had it on by default since the summer.
I agree it's not for everyone, that's why there's an opt-out, but it is an improved experience for the vast majority of current and potential future users. It's shipped, and now we can continue to iterate on it.
It might be fine for casual users, but it's really not good enough for those using WP to make sites for clients. That said, I wish you the best of success with it, and will continue to evaluate it as you progress.
If Gutenberg isn't an improvement for you with regard to client sites, then you're not actually developing your client sites correctly per the WordPress specs. You're relying on builders to do too much of the work for you.
Be serious. If I use a page builder, such as Enfold or Visual Composer, I can get a client site completed in much less time, with a consistent design, and with more precision than with Gutenberg. You're saying that I should use Gutenberg because simply because it is the WordPress Spec. But, as it stands, Gutenberg is simply inferior to page builders. IMHO that goes against the ethos of WordPress, which was always for extensibility i.e I can take my choice of competing plugins, themes and page builders according to the needs of my client and the project. Now, it looks increasingly like we're stuck with a system that is slower to use, delivers imprecise results, requires the download of overlapping blocks, is barely out of beta, AND that will destroy competition in the space. Even if it conforms to the "WordPress specs" that's not a good result.
If Gutenberg isn't an improvement for you with regard to client sites - NO, it is not an improvement for 50 out of 50 of our client sites. Not one person cares not 1 iota about it. It may actually break some of the custom themes some of them run, so it's the opposite.
"correctly per the WordPress specs" - this is like windows rolling out an update that breaks atom, sublime text, and others that were working well. Seriously.
We don't rely on page builders on 100 out of 120 sites. Some sites do have custom themes that incorporated rows for design, which may break with this update.
The sites that did rely on page builders were working great and had no need for Guten.
I wish people in the tech bubble would realize that "why there's an opt-out" - is like saying 'you can stop the beating by.." - why not just make it 'opt in" - when there is consent, side effects can be considered easier, and then there is more of a chance someone actually knows how to opt out / change the consent of this thing running.
> For those of us who create Wordpress sites for clients, this is a mess
We use Gutenberg extensively with clients (and have for some time), so I don't think that blanket statement is fair. There's been a learning curve but the business value speaks for itself at the end of the day.
Also, major projects, such as IOTA, don't even have a Wikipedia page or stub, despite the project having a multitude of academic papers and reliably sourced news. Mr Gerard will say this is because of the huge amount of spam on the pages, but other crypto pages, and non-crypto pages, have plenty of spam and they still manage to appear on the site.
As an analogy, imagine if climate deniers were in control of Wikipedia's climate change pages.
Mr Gerard simply has too much influence on Wikipedia's crypto pages. There is certainly a crypto spam problem on Wikipedia, but it seems like he is actually censoring information, which for those interested in crypto, is somewhat ironic.