> "Ability fix things"

Yes, like...

> How do you source something that didn't happen

What's the link?

> Between 2010 and 2014, the cost-per-bit delivered over the Internet has fallen about 58
> If we assume that curve continues

We don't.

And even if you do, that's a five-fold decrease when bandwidth went up 15 to 20 times.

> Therefore, we can conclude

Stop using it then.

> What I do think is reprehensible is raising the spectre of ads in the fundraising banners

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Spectre. Really.

> 's a shame that your memory is failing so much.

It's a shame you don't actually edit, and just whine about it.

> . I wonder who should be believed?

Maybe the guy with 7500+ articles and an FA that uses his real name that anyone can verify in seconds.

> Let me help you with some facts

RED HERRING ALERT! RED HERRING ALERT!

Watch carefully kids, "thekohser" constructs a totally bogus metric, posts his conclusion as a question because he's gutless, and then uses that "conclusion" to moan about this and that.

> generated about 5 million edits per month

Well anyone reading this who has even the slightest clue about how internet billing is handled, which I assume includes "thekohser", knows that the cost of hosting is based on throughput, not "the number of edits".

So:

1) the number of bytes per article in the English wiki has just under doubled since 2005:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesBytesPerArticle.htm

2) the number of page views has roughly doubled since 2008 (oldest number I have):

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthlyCombined.htm

3) binaries have increased five times since 2005:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseImageLinks.htm

4) the database as a whole has increased over eight times since 2005:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseSize.htm

5) meanwhile the number of edits has grown only three times since 2005:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm

If we consider bandwidth to be size times accesses, this implies that the total bandwidth has increased about 15 to 20 times since 2005. Yet the number of edits, which you have divided by, as increased only three times.

So, then, that seems to go a long way to "explain a 30-fold increase in spending per edit", doesn't it?

Don't tell me I'm wrong until you've written your FA and got the admin bit.

> Except the software was already 90% developed back in 2003

Oh BS.

The current software is absolutely nothing whatsoever like it was in 2003.

I say that as someone that joined well before 2003, and have been editing continually since then.

> but the writers are not typically compensated with anything more than pizza, sandwiches, and soft drinks.

I've written some measurable amount of the entire Wikipedia. I have no received pizza, sandwiches or soft drinks. Where do we get these?

> Meanwhile, they spend almost as much money (about $2 million) on travel and conferences.

Good. And maybe by continuing this, they will convince more people to open up their locked-away storehouses of dead information so I can use it to write more articles. Because right now, that's my biggest problem, idiots like the IEEE that charge $31 for a PDF of an article published in 1946 on a technology that's no even used any more. Still interesting historically, but of exactly zero commercial value. So if all those visits and junkets get Nature or Science to start giving away content after a year, that's the best money ever spent by anyone, ever.

> The WMF staff busy themselves on things that rarely have anything to do with writing

Because we don't let them. What, you think I want to be competing with someone in the back office? Screw that.

> software programmers who don't really seem to be doing anything worthwhile

The efn, sfn and convert tags are worth loads.

Says the person that almost certainly uses it constantly for all sorts of things, like everyone else on the planet. But, unlike most other sources of human knowledge developed in ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY, the Wikipedia gives you, anyone, the ability to fix things. But why do that when you can just moan about it?

> What's wrong with being explicit in casting?

Nothing, but why do we need more syntax for it? That's my real complaint with Swift - lots and lots of one-off syntax in places where it didn't seem to be needed. What's wrong with:

var view: NSView = (NSView)anyObject

It's just as explicit, yet this uses familiar syntax that everyone already knows and uses. For that matter, why did they decide to use this syntax:

var view: NSView = (NSView)anyObject

When:

NSView view = (NSView)anyObject

It exactly the same in terms of expressiveness, yet is using a syntax that we're already familiar with? Does adding var really make the code more clear? I certainly don't think so. And the colon? Really? I know the answer already, it's because they picked language X as their model rather than language Y, which is *precisely my point*. Generally if you're going to introduce a new language you have exactly one chance to get it right, and I can't say I'm at all pleased with v1.0.

> No header files confuscate

Ugh. More inside-the-box thinking. You don't need header files to do this right, which is your implication, and ideally you want more than one API for another. Dylan, yes, *Dylan*, did this way better than any language I've seen since. You could have a private API, a public API, a beta API and a release API all from the exact same code.

While it's true that using headers makes certain aspects simpler for the compiler author, it's also true that it pushes that work onto the end user - you - by forcing you to keep your headers up to date with manual edits. One could semi-automate this, but that's precisely the purpose of public/private. I have yet to see a real-world use-case where public/private didn't work.

> you are still exposing your entire class code and layout to users of it

How is that?

> presents itself as a WebDAV option

Lolz. And you get to it using a QR code!

> world in which a man is judged by the bullets on his resume, not by the knowledge in his head

This world, then.

I suspect than one adds transit to the mix, the headline is rather misleading.

By this means, Canada has met this goal since electricity was commercially available (53% of our electricity is hydro, alone).

> solar panel that has a quantum efficiency of around 40%

Conventional panels have a QE around 90%. That's why they're opaque.

"As a result, is nuclear going to be acknowledged as the future of energy production?"

Ummm, no.

As long as NG peakers are $1/W CAPEX and ~2 cents OPEX, nuclear is as dead in the water as it is today.

For comparison, the average price for nukes in the western hemisphere is about $8/W and ~5 cents OPEX.