I see ... so failing to believe that indigenous people are holy makes me the racist.

Well, I can't argue with that logic ...

You think that religious beliefs and behaviors are a race?

It's pretty close to being an MP3 marked as a BMP, actually. It's the result of taking a reversable transformation of the audio signal that separates out the different perceptible components and then discarding the ones that matter least, and keeping the important ones in a convenient form for accessing them. It's the first step you'd take if you wanted a computer to identify speakers or what they were saying. The only part that's image-related is making the diagram, but getting back to the data is just taking the pixel values.

I suspect that they started using spectrograms in reports at a time when getting back the data from the image would have lost too much quality to printing and scanning to hear anything as quiet as voices, but PDFs with lossless images retain all of that.

Good luck with all that.

You are going to value what your mullahs value. Because replacement isn't a "theory", it's just math. All it takes is time.

And they don't value your list of stuff. At all.

... as imaginary as the mass indigenous graves?

Yeah, yeah, troll, off topic, blah blah ... I just find the whole mass psychosis phenomenon fascinating. And yes, this is a part of it - "I know, we can impose a special streaming tax to support the holy indigenous!"

You ...actually think that makes it better, don't you?

"World's data not simultaneously updated instantaneously. Experts shocked!"

Do you ever ask yourself why you believe this stuff?

Are you just incapable of doing politics with real things?

Do you ever just pause and ask yourself "why do I believe that"?

I mean, are you truly just incapable of doing politics by talking about real things?

My point of course (and thanks to you for being civil, BTW) was that everything involves tradeoffs. If we can get some of the benefits of mass transit (with self driving taxis), while keeping the benefits of being able to actually go where you want when you want, that's still a win.

(Also, I'm not sure that "mall" and "teen without diving license" is the best selling point at this cultural moment :) I prefer my malls un-taken-over.)

Good luck with that. You need every bit of the current CSS and JS complexity to have any hope of meeting WCAG 2.1 AA, for example. (E.g. yes, you do have to support Firefox text-only zoom or equivalent up to 200%)

"Blah blah Elon baaaad blah blah ..."

There you go. You're welcome.

Um, yeah ... if they're all going the same place at the same time, lol.

Yes, you can increase efficiency of one aspect by seriously constraining something else. Big deal?

I mean, we're to the bug fixing phase at this point. But we actually have self-driving cars. Dang!

CSS alone is insanely more flexible. Things like virtual units (several different kinds of virtual unit, lol), calculations, etc. Your browser has to support all of this, and get the same answers as the big boys, to have any hope.

No one guy in his basement is doing all that - unless it's by wholesale using parts of chromium, say.

Also, 10 years ago was 2016. You'd probably have to go 20 years back to get to a real market of multiple usable open source browsers.