He said "a different server". I see the same thing, and it makes sense. The Follow button doesn't know who you are or where you make your Mastadon home. It's decentralized like email. So it can't make an appropriate link pointing to your server.

This problem in general isn't solved for email links either. You have to have a system-level application that understands the mailto: protocol, because there's no way for that link to know who hosts your email. Mastadon's going to be the same way, you'll need a browser extension or an external application if you're going to be able to follow anyone on any server.

"I'm 65 years old. Everyday the future looks a little bit darker. But the past, even the grimy parts of it, well, it just keeps on getting brighter all the time."

-- Alan Moore (Watchmen)

You presume anybody but circle-jerking javascript-monkeys wants all that sliding shit.

While I agree, that's not the point. The point is that a library allows you to create something that works cross-browser and cross-platform without having to test it all yourself. I'm surprised at the high-rated comments here complaining about frameworks in general. Browsers haven't de-balkanized enough that you can just write it and forget it. You need a buffer library between your code and all of the systems that will actually execute it, unless you want to spend half your time debugging browser-specific problems.

I'd started a long rebuttal, but you're not worth the effort if you're not willing to attach your name. I'll just settle for this: Show any evidence whatsoever that:
a) There really was an IRS witchhunt for the tea party (hint: there wasn't, they also targeted keywords like "progressive" and "occupy")
b) Obama ordered it

Shut up, you fucking liar.

And this will be a fair comparison the moment when:
a) Trump prints retractions of his errors when they're pointed out to him
b) The signal-to-noise ratio of the Times approaches anything near Trump's utterances

Thank you for saying the things I was thinking.

Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

I'll take a stab at this. I believe climate change is happening, is man-made, and will cause widespread problems over the next century. I believe we should stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

However, in terms of earth's entire history, we're in a very low-CO2 period. (See the graph here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...)

If I were to play devil's advocate, I'd express concern that Earth has been slowly sequestering its CO2 stores, and may not stop until it's all gone. The graph certainly seems to imply that, and intuitively it makes sense. It is more likely for organic matter to be permanently buried than for buried matter to be returned to the atmosphere. Meteor strikes and volcanic action are the only ones I can think of.

Potential benefits of higher CO2 and temperatures (benefits for non-human ecosystems, that is) are faster plant growth and further distribution of rainwater as there are more hurricanes and storm-intensity rises in general.

You're right. I'm wrong. So I'll go ahead and move the goalposts :) This whole thing feels like a lot of smoke with no fire to me. Technically Clinton performed "illegal acts" if she jaywalked. From the FBI itself:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

I did a quick 5-minute search and couldn't find out if NARA is considered "guidelines" or "law", or what penalties violations carry. I'm more inclined to consider violations an oversight rather than intentional obfuscation, considering what was found in the released emails. The alternative is that the Clintons used their server for evil for years, then became squeaky clean after an arbitrary date for which we have leaked data.

Your laundry list of other laws isn't very compelling without evidence. Those are the laws she's accused of breaking, by people who haven't been able to gather enough evidence to make a case.

To convince me that Hillary is guilty of anything more than "being bad at email", you're going to have to produce a lot more. As I said, she may have technically performed "illegal acts", but I've yet to see a piece of evidence suggesting she's anything more than an aging bureaucrat who made some technical mistakes. Nothing that rises to the level of bribery or corruption being accused.

Hillary Clinton and her illegal acts

What law?

Snowflakes who cannot accept the historic loss of thier presidental candidate have created a "post-truth" reality for themselves

That's...not actually what post-truth means, unless you're suggesting these "snowflakes" actually believe that Trump hasn't been elected president and won't reside in the White House for the next four years.

Expressing displeasure at a truthful reality is the exact opposite of "post-truth".

I agree 100% with Karl Cocknozzle. Thank you, Karl Cocknozzle, for being the voice of reason in this thread.

The year 2016 has found me saying a lot of things I never thought I'd say.

What part of Iraq still has US troops in it? Which Iraqi territories are being claimed by the United States?

You may have the wrong idea about Assange. He's either in the Kremlin's pocket or has his own (non-truth-related) agenda. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.

Without any evidence, the only group he defends during the Panama Papers scandal was Russia.

Russia needs to have sanctions against it. They have literally been invading their neighbors and taking their land. Should there not be consequences for that?

Because a federal judge hasn't found grounds for your allegation to move to trial?