It could be argued that AMP was that attempt, and the only reason AMP gained tractions was Google started using it in the carousel of their SERPs.
While Safari, when mobile is included, has ~17% of the market, that's not enough when you combine Google's browser share along with their search engine share.
Google wields too much power. To an extent, they can dictate to website owners what HTML is allowed and not allowed thanks to their dominance in search. This is compounded by the fact that their browser marketshare via Chrome and now Microsoft Edge basically allows them to do what they want with HTML.
Matters are even worse. Last year, the W3C became the "yes-man" of Google. They decided to stop developing the HTML standards and just start rubber stamping whatever WHATWG produces. WHATWG is run by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla. And who has the most power in that relationship? Yep, Google.
Well for one we know plenty of technically competent older workers who get passed over in tech and it isn't a zero sum game - in a functioning system there is room for young and old workers and overall success inproving with more workers can make more room. Elected officials are finite and zero sum so the situation isn't comparable even if principles are.
There are also the throughly mixed messages sent. Ageism is enshrined into law even past the threshold of 18. It is just defined with maximum hypocrisy such that a 20 year old is too incapable of drinking while a senile nonegarian year old with Alzheimers severe enough to have the mental capacity of a child is. Now there are obvious dangers to sunsetting rights but that double standard both normalizes the reverse and both equality and spite make "what is good for the goose is good for the gander" viscerally tempting to those who were disadvantaged.
Not the best of mentalities but it is easy to see how someone who couldn't rent a car until recently would be less than sympathetic.
jsfuck is hardly obfuscation: remove the first 828 bytes (for "eval(") and the last 3 bytes (for ")()"), and then execute the remaining string, and that gives you the original source code.
You would need to be able to dynamically find that 828, I think it is entirely trivial to have a jsfuck2 that produces a non deterministic "eval(" structure of arbitrary length.
I worked as a language teacher for a while. You see products like Duolingo come along all the time. They're always accompanied by hype in how they will help you become fluent. It's simply not the case.
The products are not necessarily useless, but they only help some people make some progress some of the time. They never live up to the hype around them.
Language acquisition is a multifaceted endeavor which takes time and effort. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying. (There are some outliers who can learn/acquire languages with great speed, but they're very rare.)
> Anyone who tells you otherwise is either misinformed or lying.
Duolingo's "Goal" settings:
> Basic 1XP | Casual 10XP | Regular 20XP | Serious 30XP | Insane 50XP per day
50XP requires no more than 25 minutes of work.
So, according to Duolingo, it is "Insane" to devote 25 minutes per day on learning a language. To learn a language typically requires 50,000 minutes. And that's just to reach a basic level.
I wonder if Duolingo's "Casual" learners realize that that setting implies a 30 year commitment.
I manage campaigns for a local, independent contractor. The business runs ads with a meager budget, <$500 a month. At the same time, clicks average around $5. The conversion rate hovers around 15% for those within the service area. That's a cost per conversion of ~$30.
For those who are outside of the service area it's less than <1%. While it may only receive a handful of clicks from outside the area a month, it eats into the already minuscule budget for the long shot of a person who decides to look up the service while on vacation or visiting relatives. It's not efficient ad spend for a business like this.
A SaaS business is a different case, but this issue is persistent and getting worse.
While Safari, when mobile is included, has ~17% of the market, that's not enough when you combine Google's browser share along with their search engine share.