If you are working on an existing project that has already chosen to use jQuery, then you should learn it.
Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Just learn Vanilla JS, and skip jQuery. Your pages will be faster and better.
jQuery was a useful thing a few years ago, but now that browser standards compliance is so much better it's a big chunk of unnecessary code.
why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?
it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink
Only in a handful of cases. I'm sure I said some things on Usenet way back when that would really embarass me if they ever bubbled up to the top of the search results. I'm sure I used some very un-PC terminology about homosexuals in my younger years, and while I am ashamed of my younger intolerance, there really would be nothing to gain from publically shaming me now. I am reformed. I am no longer homophobic. So yeah... If any such comments ever started appearing at the top of the search results, I'd certainly want to get the struck off the index.
There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?
Probably something to do with children. Like maybe they gave up on fertility treatment and adopted, and don't want the kid to think he/she was "second choice".
Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.
That's exactly what right-to-be-forgotten should be about -- stopping little embarassing moments defining you in other people's eyes.
Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.
That's a question for the law of the land and is based on the severity of the crime and bakancing the desire for rehabilitation of offenders against fear of recedivism. Every country has its own laws on the disclosure of criminal offences, and these laws are carefully considered to achieve balance.
Now imagine if you googled your name, and you found that 6 years ago, someone from your hometown, who shares your name and approximate age had gone on a spree of sexual violence and murder fueled by illicit drugs. None of the articles had a photo of the offender. Would you want the article delisted, or would you be standing up for people's right to ostracise you in order to protect the safety of "potential victims"? (See also common Arabic names and the US no-fly list.)
I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages.
Google is not a dumb index -- Google is a collection of cutting edge data-mining and artificial intelligence algorithms designed to provide data that is of direct relevance to the user's query. That is Google's job.
The European ruling was not about the deletion of information, it was a point about the relevance of information. A spent conviction is legally considered irrelevant, except in certain careers (particularly working with children) and therefore shouldn't be something that Google's algorithm returns. The immediate result was a headache for Google as they were flooded with requests, but this no doubt had an effect on their page ranking, increasing the bias towards recent information (fewer old hits should mean fewer right-to-be-forgotten requests in the long term).
As the internet gets older and bigger, Google's approach to search is starting to look too simple anyway. I can remember when I could find anything I wanted with a few clicks, but now the search resilts are full of amateur "Me too" pages, and the pages with the real information are lost in the noise. When I want to find old stuff I'm often crowded out with new stuff, and vice versa.
In future we will need to return tomore structured search, with date filtering etc to get any useful data out of our systems.
The majority: people who were convinced that working a regular, full-time job was some sort of scam. They were just too smart to fall for that scam, you see, to be tricked into working long hour for shit pay.
I grew up in a fairly diverse but dominently upper-middle class area. This was the majority opinion among people there, too. Lots of people with get-rich-quick schemes, and people who thought that working long, hard hours at minimum wage pay was for suckers, and they were too good for that sort of thing. Work at McDonalds, or work as a janitor? Fuck no. That kind of work is for losers and idiots.
I have a cousin who spent his teenage years and early twenties as a layabout, smoking pot and hanging around his parents house. He got caught with a little marijuana when he was... I think 18, 19.... the police let him go. Then when he was around 26, he decided to get his life together. His parents sent him to community college and bought him a suit. He ended up with a decent enough (not spectacular, but with a salary far above minimum wage) IT job.
Hell, I know a few kids who spent all their whole high school and college years getting drunk, only to get a job at their daddy's firm, and they make more money than I do.
I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.
Which is why there are provisions to remove someone's right to practice for crimes affecting their profession. And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.
I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger.
... which is where the government comes in. Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.
Public records are useless if you can't find them.
You can find them if you want. The point of "right to be forgotten" is that in the pre-Google days, you had to go to the library and actively hunt down historical information. It is still easier to go to the BBC website and search their news archives from the comfort of your own home than it ever was to check the 1960s archives of The Times --the information is still very easy to find if you're specifically looking for it. It just makes it harder to stumble across by accident.
Maybe you believe that no good person ever has anything to hide... but then why post AC....?
Where I live the per capita spending on students has risen over the years far ahead of inflation.
I don't know where you live, but regardless of any statistic you want to present, we're still cramming 40 kids in a classroom and they don't have books. Teachers have to go out and buy supplies with their own money because they have no budget from the school. So, yeah, if you can locate and eliminate the waste, by all means do it, but let's not pretend that these classrooms are just awash with money.
The very concept of "public school" is fairly recent.
What, exactly, is your point here? Yes, in the past, we didn't have public schools. Lots of people went uneducated. There were educated people in the past, but they were generally either rich or lucky, or both.
Even if true, how is this different from what Jews suffered in Europe for centuries?
Right, so I guess everything is perfectly fine as long as it's no worse than the treatment of Jews in Europe. By the logic, I suppose you think it'd be fine to murder millions of black people, since... hey, that's not different than the shitty treatment that the Jews suffered.
(Note, that I'm not putting forth my own theories here. I'm just obliterating yours.)
If that was your intention, it would help if you... you know... said anything that was even slightly relevant.
Super Dracos are for escape in flight too, including in and past MaxQ. But they are on Crew Dragon, not Cargo Dragon. Cargo Dragon did not carry a crew and wasn't programmed to save itself.
Student pilot here, you're wrong. I fly for a hobby and will never earn a living doing it so I have no fear of lost income, but drones are scary because they could kill me.
A lot of things could kill you. Most likely your own piloting, statistically.
Nobody wants draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing
On the contrary, a lot of people want draconian restrictions like mandatory licensing and restrictions on sale of such vehicles. Which will basically kill their use by hobbyists (except relatively wealthy ones with a ton of time, like yourself). Spend a shitload of time getting a license, then pay the ridiculously inflated prices for a US-legal version of the equipment... ain't nobody going to do that.
Function reject.