Best case scenario is you avoid a shitload of taxes. Worst case scenario is that you negotiate your tax bill down after getting caught and still wind up paying less in taxes than you would've if you adhered to the tax regs to begin with. Seems like a win-win to me.
Are you saying the fact that the two games were run sequentially is itself priming the outcome of the second game? Or are you referring specifically to the other experiment where students were asked to think about a past winning experience?
The question the experiment was designed to answer was "Are winner's of previous competitions more likely to cheat in subsequent competitions?". How can a controlled study be conducted to answer this question unless the subjects are subjected to winning (and losing)? And if this cheating inclination does occur outside the confines of this experiment what's different in the real world vs the experiment? The period of time that elapses between winning one competition and competing in another?
With the way Microsoft was progressing it seemed only a matter of time before they started actually forcing users to upgrade. Looks like we're very close to that point.
He has an Indian accent, his name is "Bob", he's far more courteous than any other support rep you've worked with, and his solution to every problem you throw at him is to perform a complete reinstall of your Windows installation.
I don't see how the lack of odor or residue implies a clean fuel. Maybe cleaner than what it replaced but not necessarily less deadly. Like Carbon Monoxide.
The only thing this optional construction adds is a redundant data member (used to track whether the optional is assigned or not), whereas a traditional null/nil check can use the original field value to make this determination.
Regarding the multiple redundant checks that optionals encourage, those mostly come from optionals chaining.
Yep, and it encourages repeating that check multiple times in the same construct vs just once. Putting a question mark in the language definition vs a nil/null check does not a well-structured boundary make.
Null/invalid values need to be checked but the problem with optionals is that they encourage multiple redundant inline checks vs more structured approaches that perform the check only once.
It doesn't from the X86 (emulator) and ARM code I've analyzed, even with full optimizations enabled. Plus even at its most optimal the best it could do are a bunch of branch conditionals, which dirty up the branch-prediction cache.
Wall Street already doesn't like Twitter's lack of growth and if they eliminate hateful trolls and fake accounts then Twitter is going to have to start eliminate analysts' twitter accounts as well because the projections are going to be rather 'hateful' as well.
Double the I/O size and the SSD is still an order of magnitude faster. Reduce the I/O size to 4KB or 8KB for more random DB workloads or pagefile operations or filesystem metadata fetches and we're at 2 orders of magnitude faster.
So I'm able to do complete lifecycle calculations of I/O execution times yet I'm not able to understand the difference between what you subjectively call small vs larger I/Os?
Slashdot Mirror
Best case scenario is you avoid a shitload of taxes. Worst case scenario is that you negotiate your tax bill down after getting caught and still wind up paying less in taxes than you would've if you adhered to the tax regs to begin with. Seems like a win-win to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is supposed to be comforting?
Are you saying the fact that the two games were run sequentially is itself priming the outcome of the second game? Or are you referring specifically to the other experiment where students were asked to think about a past winning experience?
The question the experiment was designed to answer was "Are winner's of previous competitions more likely to cheat in subsequent competitions?". How can a controlled study be conducted to answer this question unless the subjects are subjected to winning (and losing)? And if this cheating inclination does occur outside the confines of this experiment what's different in the real world vs the experiment? The period of time that elapses between winning one competition and competing in another?
What's next, a help file that's actually included with the application rather than launching a slow and cumbersome web search?
http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/...
To discuss Google pulling the app from the store. Looks l like Samsung prevailed in the discussion.
"On an average day, more than 20 percent of the traffic to WIRED.com comes from a reader who is blocking our ads."
"The post goes on to offer two options for users blocking ads: whitelist wired.com or subscribe for $1/week."
Privacy invasions/watt.
With my Ad Blocker.
Marginal increase in capacity for a major decrease in performance.
Some of it to coerce citizen behavior, like convincing people that the encryption on their phone's isn't effective so that they wont use it.
With the way Microsoft was progressing it seemed only a matter of time before they started actually forcing users to upgrade. Looks like we're very close to that point.
He has an Indian accent, his name is "Bob", he's far more courteous than any other support rep you've worked with, and his solution to every problem you throw at him is to perform a complete reinstall of your Windows installation.
Credit cards are cheap, thin, light, have chipped security, and couldn't be any easier to use.
I don't see how the lack of odor or residue implies a clean fuel. Maybe cleaner than what it replaced but not necessarily less deadly. Like Carbon Monoxide.
The only thing this optional construction adds is a redundant data member (used to track whether the optional is assigned or not), whereas a traditional null/nil check can use the original field value to make this determination.
Regarding the multiple redundant checks that optionals encourage, those mostly come from optionals chaining.
Yep, and it encourages repeating that check multiple times in the same construct vs just once. Putting a question mark in the language definition vs a nil/null check does not a well-structured boundary make.
Null/invalid values need to be checked but the problem with optionals is that they encourage multiple redundant inline checks vs more structured approaches that perform the check only once.
It doesn't from the X86 (emulator) and ARM code I've analyzed, even with full optimizations enabled. Plus even at its most optimal the best it could do are a bunch of branch conditionals, which dirty up the branch-prediction cache.
Options are bad because they cause compiled code bloat and also lazy and messy constructs that overuse them.
What?.Were?.They?.Thinking
Wall Street already doesn't like Twitter's lack of growth and if they eliminate hateful trolls and fake accounts then Twitter is going to have to start eliminate analysts' twitter accounts as well because the projections are going to be rather 'hateful' as well.
Double the I/O size and the SSD is still an order of magnitude faster. Reduce the I/O size to 4KB or 8KB for more random DB workloads or pagefile operations or filesystem metadata fetches and we're at 2 orders of magnitude faster.
So I'm able to do complete lifecycle calculations of I/O execution times yet I'm not able to understand the difference between what you subjectively call small vs larger I/Os?