My definition of a programming language is that which is compilable into machine-readable form.
Now you're going to say, "HTML can be compiled into machine-readable form, it's displayed on your screen, isn't it?!". Yes, the content that originated from HTML (and others) is displayed on your screen, but that's because the browser is interpreting the HTML and then displaying it. Like someone else already responded to you and said, HTML is data, or more specifically structured content.
An analogy that may help distinguish HTML (and CSS and the like) from what I consider programming languages would be to take printing a certificate using a word processor. The words and images you insert into the word processor isn't a "programming language". It's a "template" which is used by the printer in order to display the content (on paper), just like browsers that use the HTML to display the content (on the screen).
HTML tags for forms, different types of media, etc. kind of blur the lines a little bit because they instruct the browser to perform certain actions, but that doesn't invalidate the interpretation of HTML as a display template, or data.
No other "utility" even comes close.
No, but my health insurance (individual, not through my small-business employer) goes up about 30% per annum... but I digress...
Then, posted not long ago, an update: 45 new cases and 28 deaths from July 18-20.
Yeah, the first thing I thought of was: how many people who graduate with any 4-year degree stay in their field of study? Without having anything to compare this to, how do we know that the numbers for STEM graduates are abnormal?
I would guess that those figures for the STEM graduates aren't too different from any other field.
Also, it would have been more meaningful if they had limited the time after graduation. For example, if 50% of STEM graduates were working in an unrelated field 10 years after graduation, I'd say that says a lot more than just "currently". Seems to me a significant number of people "retire" from their main field of study and then take on another, completely unrelated, but more satisfying job in their golden years (i.e. retiring from a management position to work at a golf course).
Good question, but I'd argue it's more about shot selection than anything. Most of those goals were well beyond the 18 (the penalty box). If you're comparing to recent games (yeah, I'm in the US, I still call them games, shoot me), like in the World Cup, you see very few shots outside the 18. An extreme example would be the Netherlands-Argentina game where they both played very defensive games. Even in games like Germany-Brazil, it seemed Germany was more about finesse and getting the ball deep inside the box to increase chances of the shot going in the back of the net. Even on free kicks near the 18, not many are even an attempt on goal, but rather crosses.
I used to play, and IMHO shot shaping is more about technique (and shot selection) than the design of the ball. You'll notice in your video a lot of them were hit with the outside of the foot, right or left, and that's the easiest way to get it to curve to the outside. You don't see many players these days even attempting those.