If you are measuring state by state, yes it does. By a considerable margin, in fact.
Obviously it doesn't have a majority of the country's entire population in it, but it has more than any other single state, so from that perspective, it does have the most people.
Edge is, to be fair, is actually pretty decent, at least as far web browsers go. In terms of standards compliance, it's actually even currently ahead of Firefox (albeit by the smallest measurable amount... and Firefox will likely leapfrog ahead of Edge by a point or two in the next version). Only two browsers are seriously ahead of Edge in terms of standards compliance: Opera and Chrome, and at the rate things Edge has been improving, it may even be a serious competitor with those two leaders by sometime in the coming year.
That changes nothing... the impetus for the vehicle would still be to drive as safely as possible. *IF* some sort of worst-case scenario happened where a person stepped out in front of car that had no *physical* ability to stop without a collision, then I suppose that might result in fatality, but you are talking about a situation that would be happening *FAR* more quickly than any human would have had time to react to in the first place anyways. In reality, the likelihood of the scenario you presented happening is small enough that you are likely to only encounter the dilemma in a philosophy class, not in a real-world driving scenario.
If a pedestrian suddenly steps infront of a moving vehicle, the alternatives could be:....
I'd choose option 1 as well... but whether the sidewalk or opposing lane are empty is irrelevant, because it is the *only* option, out of of the ones you listed, if one is trying to actually making a conscientious effort to drive safely. Any option for avoiding collisions that includes the idea of swerving introduces entirely uncontrolled new variables into a situation can potentially result in even more damage. This is rule number one in absolutely any defensive driving program. There is a 4th option that you didn't mention: Slow down, as quickly as possible, minimizing the total kinetic energy in an inevitable collision and perhaps the chance of a fatality... and ideally not be driving so fast that there is any kind of likelihood that some pedestrian up ahead that you are still close enough to avoid hitting if they do a *SINGLE* stupid thing (the actual stopping distance at those speeds is actually pretty darn close... taking only about two seconds to actually decellerate from 50kph to zero in dry conditions or less than three on wet roads). Remember, also, that computers can react *WAY* faster than people... where a human might not even start to register that something unexpected happened (a situation that alone is going to add perhaps no less than a tenth of a second) *after* the pedestrian had suddenly stepped out, a computer that is being observant would be able to identify that the pedestrian's trajectory on the sidewalk had altered from its expected course before they even got onto the road, buying extra moments, perhaps even several seconds overall, that at ordinary city driving speeds may actually present more than enough time for a vehicle to slow down enough to come to a safe stop if the person actually *DID* really step out onto the road.
A machine shouldn't "prioritize" the passengers or the pedestrian's lives, per se... it should prioritize driving safely. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less. Driving safely entails being aware enough of one's surroundings and driving at an appropriate speed that one is able to safely stop in a hypothetical reduced visibility scenario that the likelihood of something that is genuinely unexpected arising should be statistically negligible. Any sense of "priotizing" would be pointless, and would only lead to people blaming whatever convenient target they can find if or when things don't go there way. If the car was objectively driving safely, then any debates on what the car "should have done" are rendered moot... the car obeys the law, and does its best to drive in a safe manner. Any accident it therefore gets into with a vehicle that is being driven by a human would therefore be statistically more likely to be the human's fault.
Choice 1: Hit pedestrian.
Choice 2: Drive off a cliff and kill the passenger.
While this is an interesting hypothetical scenario, I might suggest that the number of times that this sort of thing has actually been any kind of real choice to have to make, particularly in a situation that was not preventable by paying enough attention to the road in the first place, is probably countable on one hand in the entire history of automobiles, if not actually entirely non-existent.
The ideal is that the self-driving car would be paying enough attention (tirelessly, I might add) to the road and what lies ahead that this sort of "kill the driver or kill the pedestrian" situation that people like to dream up wouldn't ever arise in practice... an automated car that is genuinely designed for safety would simply not drive so fast in any sort of hypothetically reduced visibility situation that there would not be enough time to stop safely in the first place.
There is no evidence to actually back up the idea that the rate of inflation is significantly accelerated through minimum wage rises when those rises have not kept pace with the rate of inflation in the first place for decades. This seems to be a common folk wisdom fallacy that might appear to make sense on its surface, but fails to actually be supported by real world data. I have my own theories on why this is, but perhaps there's someone with an economics background out there that can explain exactly why minimum wage increases don't drive inflation as much as some people fear it would or should.
Just as a heads up, modding down doesn't really answer the question, although I figure that whichever mod decided to do that is probably too blinded by their own worldview to realize that by simply modding down instead of answering, they have basically admitted they would rather censor an oppositional viewpoint than try and rationally debate it.
So let's give this a head start, shall we?
The only objection I have ever seen that makes any sense about targetted ads is the argument that they can be intrusive, or get in the way of finding useful information. This could be a fair criticism, but it is actually no less true for ads that are completely untargetted... if an advertiser wants their ad to be obnoxious and annoying, they are going to do it anyways, whether the ad actually interests you or not. I dare say that any interest one may have otherwise had in an ad's content will generally be overridden entirely by how the advertiser chooses to place that ad, and whether it is actually obtrusive to what the individual who may have even otherwise been genuinely interested in that product was trying to do at the moment that ad was shown.
But again, this isn't a problem with targeting ads that are geared towards what a person's interests are, it's a problem with advertisers not realizing that this approach comes across more like nagging than advertising, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are trying to cater the ads to a person's interests or not.
So wait... you think that relying on human memory is okay because it's subjective and can make mistakes?
In other words, you prefer an environment where it is possible to freely lie and be able to get away with it on the grounds that memory isn't necessarily perfect.
Got it.
You sound like you sort of want to be a lawyer, if you aren't one already.
Why? If there is nothing criminal with observing and remembering from personal observation, why does the fact that the record happens to be objectively permanent make any difference?
I would argue that they did that more to themselves by several orders of magnitude by trying to start a lawsuit about this instead of just firing her and being done with it. This is classic Streisand Effect.
Why would you assume that? They hired and promoted her as a brand ambassador -- their damages exceed just the loss of publicity from her not using the phone in public, but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.
They are no less at fault for causing any damage to their own brand for hiring her in the first place. Unless they had offered her payment for her services in advance, even if as a hiring bonus (which typically requires a minimum number of months of tenure, and the duration is spelled out within the hiring contract), then the company has no remotely plausible claim to monetary damages that they did not put upon themselves by taking the risk in hiring her.
...but also the negative press from people seeing that even someone that Samsung paid to use their phone chooses to use an iPhone.
That's a fair comment, see, but this is something that they brought upon themselves by making a fuss about it where nobody would have paid attention otherwise (q.v. Streisand Effect)
Actually, yeah.... when the recording is in a public place where anyone could be there lawfully, and anyone who was there could have also witnessed it. If it's not in a public place, then that's an *ENTIRELY* different story.
Of course, but the consequence of breaking a hiring contract only means that the person doesn't have a job anymore.... they can't go and (successfully) sue somebody because the person doesn't perform as expected unless the company has paid the person in advance for those services.
Breaking a hiring contract doesn't otherwise cause any actual financial harm to the company that they did not inflict on themselves by hiring her in the first place.
The so-called "unique advertising ID" does not actually uniquely identify a specific piece of hardware outside of the application for which that particular unique advertising ID was generated. Those unique advertising ID's are generated when the application is first installed, and have no connection to any other unique advertising ID's that may exist on the device in other applications. If the application is uninstalled, the owner has no way to send any advertisements to them.
The app needs to get permission from the user to do this.
But obviously if you send any other personal identifying information to the publisher, of course they can potentially try and contact you outside of the app... my point is that the unique identifier that the publisher uses to send you push notifications will be useless to them if you uninstall the app.
They can target your device through mobile ad networks since they have the device advertising unique ID
That advertising ID, at least on iOS, is specific to that application only... trying to send messages to that ID after you've uninstalled it wouldn't do anything.
Even if you reinstalled the application, you would get an entirely new unique advertising ID associated with the app.
Unless you choose to send other personal identifying information to the publisher, they don't have any way to send you messages about anything if you either disable push notifications from the app or simply uninstall it.
The only thing the publisher will know is that the unique ID associated with a particular purchase is not working.
To where, exactly? If you've uninstalled the application, the unique ID that they may have had previously when you installed the app won't associate with a specific device.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are measuring state by state, yes it does. By a considerable margin, in fact.
Obviously it doesn't have a majority of the country's entire population in it, but it has more than any other single state, so from that perspective, it does have the most people.
Apparently, yes
Edge is, to be fair, is actually pretty decent, at least as far web browsers go. In terms of standards compliance, it's actually even currently ahead of Firefox (albeit by the smallest measurable amount... and Firefox will likely leapfrog ahead of Edge by a point or two in the next version). Only two browsers are seriously ahead of Edge in terms of standards compliance: Opera and Chrome, and at the rate things Edge has been improving, it may even be a serious competitor with those two leaders by sometime in the coming year.
(facepalm)
That changes nothing... the impetus for the vehicle would still be to drive as safely as possible. *IF* some sort of worst-case scenario happened where a person stepped out in front of car that had no *physical* ability to stop without a collision, then I suppose that might result in fatality, but you are talking about a situation that would be happening *FAR* more quickly than any human would have had time to react to in the first place anyways. In reality, the likelihood of the scenario you presented happening is small enough that you are likely to only encounter the dilemma in a philosophy class, not in a real-world driving scenario.
I'd choose option 1 as well... but whether the sidewalk or opposing lane are empty is irrelevant, because it is the *only* option, out of of the ones you listed, if one is trying to actually making a conscientious effort to drive safely. Any option for avoiding collisions that includes the idea of swerving introduces entirely uncontrolled new variables into a situation can potentially result in even more damage. This is rule number one in absolutely any defensive driving program. There is a 4th option that you didn't mention: Slow down, as quickly as possible, minimizing the total kinetic energy in an inevitable collision and perhaps the chance of a fatality... and ideally not be driving so fast that there is any kind of likelihood that some pedestrian up ahead that you are still close enough to avoid hitting if they do a *SINGLE* stupid thing (the actual stopping distance at those speeds is actually pretty darn close... taking only about two seconds to actually decellerate from 50kph to zero in dry conditions or less than three on wet roads). Remember, also, that computers can react *WAY* faster than people... where a human might not even start to register that something unexpected happened (a situation that alone is going to add perhaps no less than a tenth of a second) *after* the pedestrian had suddenly stepped out, a computer that is being observant would be able to identify that the pedestrian's trajectory on the sidewalk had altered from its expected course before they even got onto the road, buying extra moments, perhaps even several seconds overall, that at ordinary city driving speeds may actually present more than enough time for a vehicle to slow down enough to come to a safe stop if the person actually *DID* really step out onto the road.
A machine shouldn't "prioritize" the passengers or the pedestrian's lives, per se... it should prioritize driving safely. Full stop. Nothing more and nothing less. Driving safely entails being aware enough of one's surroundings and driving at an appropriate speed that one is able to safely stop in a hypothetical reduced visibility scenario that the likelihood of something that is genuinely unexpected arising should be statistically negligible. Any sense of "priotizing" would be pointless, and would only lead to people blaming whatever convenient target they can find if or when things don't go there way. If the car was objectively driving safely, then any debates on what the car "should have done" are rendered moot... the car obeys the law, and does its best to drive in a safe manner. Any accident it therefore gets into with a vehicle that is being driven by a human would therefore be statistically more likely to be the human's fault.
While this is an interesting hypothetical scenario, I might suggest that the number of times that this sort of thing has actually been any kind of real choice to have to make, particularly in a situation that was not preventable by paying enough attention to the road in the first place, is probably countable on one hand in the entire history of automobiles, if not actually entirely non-existent.
The ideal is that the self-driving car would be paying enough attention (tirelessly, I might add) to the road and what lies ahead that this sort of "kill the driver or kill the pedestrian" situation that people like to dream up wouldn't ever arise in practice... an automated car that is genuinely designed for safety would simply not drive so fast in any sort of hypothetically reduced visibility situation that there would not be enough time to stop safely in the first place.
Redhat uses systemd too, actually. In fact, I think that's where it started.
There is no evidence to actually back up the idea that the rate of inflation is significantly accelerated through minimum wage rises when those rises have not kept pace with the rate of inflation in the first place for decades. This seems to be a common folk wisdom fallacy that might appear to make sense on its surface, but fails to actually be supported by real world data. I have my own theories on why this is, but perhaps there's someone with an economics background out there that can explain exactly why minimum wage increases don't drive inflation as much as some people fear it would or should.
Just as a heads up, modding down doesn't really answer the question, although I figure that whichever mod decided to do that is probably too blinded by their own worldview to realize that by simply modding down instead of answering, they have basically admitted they would rather censor an oppositional viewpoint than try and rationally debate it.
So let's give this a head start, shall we?
The only objection I have ever seen that makes any sense about targetted ads is the argument that they can be intrusive, or get in the way of finding useful information. This could be a fair criticism, but it is actually no less true for ads that are completely untargetted... if an advertiser wants their ad to be obnoxious and annoying, they are going to do it anyways, whether the ad actually interests you or not. I dare say that any interest one may have otherwise had in an ad's content will generally be overridden entirely by how the advertiser chooses to place that ad, and whether it is actually obtrusive to what the individual who may have even otherwise been genuinely interested in that product was trying to do at the moment that ad was shown.
But again, this isn't a problem with targeting ads that are geared towards what a person's interests are, it's a problem with advertisers not realizing that this approach comes across more like nagging than advertising, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether they are trying to cater the ads to a person's interests or not.
I mean, I hate ads as much as the next guy, but I still prefer ads that align with my interests or are relevant to me somehow than those that are not.
So wait... you think that relying on human memory is okay because it's subjective and can make mistakes?
In other words, you prefer an environment where it is possible to freely lie and be able to get away with it on the grounds that memory isn't necessarily perfect.
Got it.
You sound like you sort of want to be a lawyer, if you aren't one already.
Why? If there is nothing criminal with observing and remembering from personal observation, why does the fact that the record happens to be objectively permanent make any difference?
I would argue that they did that more to themselves by several orders of magnitude by trying to start a lawsuit about this instead of just firing her and being done with it. This is classic Streisand Effect.
They are no less at fault for causing any damage to their own brand for hiring her in the first place. Unless they had offered her payment for her services in advance, even if as a hiring bonus (which typically requires a minimum number of months of tenure, and the duration is spelled out within the hiring contract), then the company has no remotely plausible claim to monetary damages that they did not put upon themselves by taking the risk in hiring her.
That's a fair comment, see, but this is something that they brought upon themselves by making a fuss about it where nobody would have paid attention otherwise (q.v. Streisand Effect)
Actually, yeah.... when the recording is in a public place where anyone could be there lawfully, and anyone who was there could have also witnessed it. If it's not in a public place, then that's an *ENTIRELY* different story.
What more does anyone need to say?
#facepalm
Of course, but the consequence of breaking a hiring contract only means that the person doesn't have a job anymore.... they can't go and (successfully) sue somebody because the person doesn't perform as expected unless the company has paid the person in advance for those services.
Breaking a hiring contract doesn't otherwise cause any actual financial harm to the company that they did not inflict on themselves by hiring her in the first place.
Sure... but ordinarily I'd expect that the consequence would be dismissal, if they found out, not actually getting *sued* over it.
Unless she had received any salary or payments in advance, in which case I could see it.
Otherwise, however... Samsung shouldn't really be able to do more than fire her ass for not promoting the company as expected.
It's safe to say he didn't mean 5nm, but meant actually 5 um, which is, by the way, about 20 thousandths of an inch.
duh... freudian slip.... didn't catch in on preview. I meant the *developer* has no way to send any advertisements to them.
The so-called "unique advertising ID" does not actually uniquely identify a specific piece of hardware outside of the application for which that particular unique advertising ID was generated. Those unique advertising ID's are generated when the application is first installed, and have no connection to any other unique advertising ID's that may exist on the device in other applications. If the application is uninstalled, the owner has no way to send any advertisements to them.
The app needs to get permission from the user to do this.
But obviously if you send any other personal identifying information to the publisher, of course they can potentially try and contact you outside of the app... my point is that the unique identifier that the publisher uses to send you push notifications will be useless to them if you uninstall the app.
That advertising ID, at least on iOS, is specific to that application only... trying to send messages to that ID after you've uninstalled it wouldn't do anything.
Even if you reinstalled the application, you would get an entirely new unique advertising ID associated with the app.
Unless you choose to send other personal identifying information to the publisher, they don't have any way to send you messages about anything if you either disable push notifications from the app or simply uninstall it.
The only thing the publisher will know is that the unique ID associated with a particular purchase is not working.
To where, exactly? If you've uninstalled the application, the unique ID that they may have had previously when you installed the app won't associate with a specific device.