Just crunched the numbers for my hometown (Tulsa, OK). Both the average rents ($175/month) and the average commute (21.3 minutes) would be in their top 5.
Yeah, we're not exactly a famous tech hub. But we do have a pretty decent concentration of telecommunications and flight simulation work here. Enough to keep me employed and happy with my 15-30 minute commute and my house that would cost $3.5 Million in San Fran.
Before you jump to conclusions about "racist software," I can tell you that the reason for this is very well known and understood: lighting and contrast ratios. Specifically, you get a much higher contrast ratio of faces with light skinned people from image sensors than do you for dark
It holds true for really crappy cameras, like webcams with bad lighting, but most cameras over a few hundred dollars are actually pretty good at capturing contrast
I can see nothing wrong with comparing a still camera in a studio to a video stream shot 15 feet away on a subway platform. Nothing at all.
Which brings us back around to where we started. It appears they are quite satisfied to use cheap cameras setups that are good enough not to overly misidentify white people, and then stop there.
"Everyone needs to be sure to tighten one's safety belt before approaching the cliff."
I'm sorry, but that just looks godawful. I do a lot of writing, and if you ever see me write something like that, I guarantee I was drunk at the time.
In order to even begin to be proper, you'd have to replace "Everyone" with "One" as well. If you change pronouns in mid-sentence, the implication is that they refer to different people, and that's going to trip up your reader. Even then, its sounds super-duper formal. Sometime you actually want that, but its very rare.
So no, this doesn't work at all. We have a perfectly good informal pronoun for this situation, that goes all the way back to Shakespeare: "their".
Ever written a user's guide? A "user" is by definition a third person singular entity of unknown gender. I've been making robust use of singular "they" in documentation my entire 30-year career. It's nice to see that some of the style guides will finally have my back. Previously I've mostly just relied on the fact that most people are just grateful I wrote any documentation at all.
Did not watch myself. No need the concept is stupid on its face.
This is quite ironic, since this:
Puting the two together though is just silly. Superman is for all intents and purposes a god. While not wholly omnipotent, he is so far above man that he can freely toss our greatest war machines around like children's toys and even slow the spin of earth altering time. Batman simply isn't in his league. Additionally Superman's original character was almost Christ like in his unfailing sense of justice and strength of character regarding doing the right thing. The Superman of the early comics would never have agreed to even associate with the Bat,...
...was essentially the exact set of issues the movie you proudly didn't watch was addressing.
(Full disclosure: I'm one of the weird 27% who actually liked it)
Perhaps, but the ultimate ancestor in this thread was referring to "multi-junction cells have breached 46%", which tend to made of things like Indium Gallium Phosphide, Gallium Arsenide, Germanium, and Indium Gallium Arsenide.
I believe the point was that that we know how to make them far more efficient than 26%, if we really want to. It just tends to require making them of relatively exotic things that probably aren't worth the trouble.
The American agricultural industry has been consolidating for years - small family farms are in a slow but inevitably decline. Those big corporate farms have a great advantage in simple economy of scale.
...and that I think is the answer. When most people think "farmer", they think of a single family-owned and worked operation. Those are still around, but the industry is increasingly large corporations who hire out all the labor. Equipment maintenance is just another bit of labor for them to hire out, and doing it to another large company (eg: the manufacturer) is probably simpler for the books anyway. Deere is likely designing their equipment for those operations. Traditional small farmers are just not their market anymore.
Or have a service person drive out to the machine?
...when they can fit you into their schedule? During harvest time, when everyone else is also discovering their harvesters need service, but you need the crops harvested NOW? Yeahhhh.....no.
Growing up in a farming community I know that many farmers do a lot of their own maintenance on equipment.
My Grandfather thought nothing of stopping a piece of farm equipment and rebuilding its engine in-situ. That's the thing about being a farmer; you have to be able to do *everything* yourself. You can't exactly call the Auto club and have your harvester towed back to the dealer. At least I thought you couldn't. Apparently, that's what Deere expects you to do now. Not sure why anyone who isn't a big corporate farm managed by remote MBAs would agree to do that.
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring...
You're kidding, right? There were at one point so many Republican candidates that they had to split the field in two and hold the same debate twice to get them all in. There are a ton of things you can say about how the Republican Party got to this point, but lack of better choices is not one of them.
... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites
*chortle* I couldn't even count how many articles I read about organized Republican efforts to stop Trump. At one point they even tried having all the other candidates to collude on which states they would compete in, in hopes they'd each win their strongest states and throw the nomination into the convention. The only reason you didn't hear Trump supporters screaming "Shenanigans" like Sanders supporters it is because nothing they tried came close to working.
The Republicans had preferred party candidates early on (eg: Bush and Grahm); candidates dropped out due to lack of electoral support roughly in the order of how reasonable they were, which meant the preferred candidates were among the first folks to go. I won't claim to know what their voters were all thinking, but if someone were to argue that Republican primary voters were voting entirely based on who the party leaders DIDN'T want, I'd have trouble arguing against it.
Trump won the nomination because, given a menu of 20+, he's the guy Republican voters wanted. If you think that's a problem, your problem is with that party and its voters, not with its nomination methods.
Look at the revised map. Most of northern Africa is wider than the U.S. (at the same latitude).
...Which might partly explain why North America was far easier for Eurasians to colonize than tropical Africa. A large part of the rest is that A lot of North America had biomes that supported Eurasian crops and livestock, while most of sub-Saharan Africa does not (until you get all the way down to the tip, which is not-coincidentally the only place Eurasians successfully pushed out the natives and set up shop for themselves).
Why limit the solution to 2D maps on paper? You can get a much better visualization on a computer...
..or on a globe. When I was a kid, not only did my "Social Studies" classrooms all have globes, but I had one in my room. They were pretty cheap and ubiquitous. No electricity required, and they can still be made from paper if you like.
So let me get this straight, Africa and South America have that much more land and natural resources than the first world countries - and still can't do nearly as well in terms of development and wealth? That would tend to make one even more dismissive of cultures on those larger landmasses that cannot pull it together.
...unless one reads Guns, Germs, & Steel, or its equivalent content out of a textbook somewhere, which explains all this rather nicely. IMHO its much better to take these questions head-on, rather than ignore them.
(Executive summary: Having a large amount of land at the same latitude is really important to any agricultural society. This is because the "resources" that matter are ultimately domesticable crops and animals, both of which tend to not do well outside of their home latitudes. So Eurasia wins.).
Summary: 2/3 of the hikes are directly due to states cutting their funding to their state university system, forcing them to make up the difference through tuition. Public higher education used to be free in a lot of states. IOW, states for decades have been jointly deciding to divest from public higher education, and use the money elsewhere (in my state, that's on tax cuts to wealthy residents). If their kids are the only ones who can afford college now, I'm guessing you won't hear them complaining much.
This gets us about 95% of the way through the plot of Real Genius. All that remains is for Val Kilmer to distract everyone by hitting on Melania while someone else hacks the laser to fill Trump Tower with popcorn.
Its interesting the WotC is doing something, but honestly there have been computerized D&D aids as long as there has been D&D. One of the first real computer programs I conceived, designed, and wrote myself was a TRS-80 BASIC program to quickly create character sheets back in 1979. Back then the official rules (as I read them anyway) said you were supposed to roll for all abilities, and then decide if you wanted to use that set of rolls. It wasn't uncommon to blow an entire gaming session just in character creation. Very time consuming if you wanted something to fit in the stat-limitations of a class like a Paladin...unless you have a computer.
That edition's GM manual also had rules for randomly generating dungeons on the fly (using die rolls). That could be computerized too, allowing for someone to efficiently GM their own solo campaigns. Sort of like a computer/pen-n-paper hybrid Diablo.
I work at BAE and have a disability. HR was basically worthless but my managers have been ok.
So you are essentially confirming the relative behavior of HR there.
If he was doing encryption work it was probably going to be classified and classified work can't be done remotely, but you also aren't going to be working nights or be on call unless he was specifically being hired for special duties which would have been in the job description.
The first half is 100% true, the second half, not so much. It depends a lot on the classification and how security is enforced at your facility. I've worked at places that were just like normal tech offices, except that nobody who wasn't a "US Person" was allowed in. I've also worked at places where OT was common, but truly wild hours were a PITA because there were special procedures to open up and close down the building. That was a job doing COMSEC (encryption) work. At the fullest extreme, I interviewed for one job where OT was flat out impossible, because the job site was only accessible via a plane with blacked-out windows that flew you in at 9, and out at 5.
but the discrimination line about "stereotypical male breadwinner" is complete bullshit
Yes, and no. They advertise their work-family balance. So there are two possibilities here: Either that is actually complete BS (which is fraud), or they are being selective about who they give that perk to (which opens them up to this charge when they decide not to give it to a man).
When I was trying to prevent data sniffing on a site where a unique key had to be entered to view data (and/or QR code scan), I did a growing time delay on repeated attempts combined with a CAPTCHA on the third and subsequent tries. After 15 tries, you get false negative results (real keys still come out as failures/404).
...after 1500 tries, it gives you false positive results. Logs you a fake website with full of Barney episodes mislabeled as porn.
Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
"intelligence" is government-speak for information they took from someone. If your desk safe has a factory combination that always works, that isn't "intelligence". The contents of what they found inside your safe when they used that combo is intelligence.
So no, its not their job to warn US citizens if they are vulnerable domestically. That's called "domestic counter-intelligence", and is explicitly the FBI's job.
Sure, it would be nice if the CIA did it anyway. But if that burns a method they are finding useful themselves to do things that ARE their job, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Netflix is a service, while DVRs are service delivery devices. Not only are they not mutually-exclusive, but they can be complimentary. I watched Netflix on my TiVo for years. When I cord-cut, I had to go shopping for a new device for the TV (tried Chromecast, settled on Roku).
Comparing the two directly would be like comparing the number of people with gmail accounts with the number of people who own cable-modems. They are nearly orthogonal things.
Slashdot Mirror
Just crunched the numbers for my hometown (Tulsa, OK). Both the average rents ($175/month) and the average commute (21.3 minutes) would be in their top 5.
Yeah, we're not exactly a famous tech hub. But we do have a pretty decent concentration of telecommunications and flight simulation work here. Enough to keep me employed and happy with my 15-30 minute commute and my house that would cost $3.5 Million in San Fran.
Before you jump to conclusions about "racist software," I can tell you that the reason for this is very well known and understood: lighting and contrast ratios. Specifically, you get a much higher contrast ratio of faces with light skinned people from image sensors than do you for dark
It holds true for really crappy cameras, like webcams with bad lighting, but most cameras over a few hundred dollars are actually pretty good at capturing contrast
I can see nothing wrong with comparing a still camera in a studio to a video stream shot 15 feet away on a subway platform. Nothing at all.
Which brings us back around to where we started. It appears they are quite satisfied to use cheap cameras setups that are good enough not to overly misidentify white people, and then stop there.
"Everyone needs to be sure to tighten one's safety belt before approaching the cliff."
I'm sorry, but that just looks godawful. I do a lot of writing, and if you ever see me write something like that, I guarantee I was drunk at the time.
In order to even begin to be proper, you'd have to replace "Everyone" with "One" as well. If you change pronouns in mid-sentence, the implication is that they refer to different people, and that's going to trip up your reader. Even then, its sounds super-duper formal. Sometime you actually want that, but its very rare.
So no, this doesn't work at all. We have a perfectly good informal pronoun for this situation, that goes all the way back to Shakespeare: "their".
How is this related to tech in anyway whatsoever?
Ever written a user's guide? A "user" is by definition a third person singular entity of unknown gender. I've been making robust use of singular "they" in documentation my entire 30-year career. It's nice to see that some of the style guides will finally have my back. Previously I've mostly just relied on the fact that most people are just grateful I wrote any documentation at all.
Did not watch myself. No need the concept is stupid on its face.
This is quite ironic, since this:
Puting the two together though is just silly. Superman is for all intents and purposes a god. While not wholly omnipotent, he is so far above man that he can freely toss our greatest war machines around like children's toys and even slow the spin of earth altering time. Batman simply isn't in his league. Additionally Superman's original character was almost Christ like in his unfailing sense of justice and strength of character regarding doing the right thing. The Superman of the early comics would never have agreed to even associate with the Bat, ...
...was essentially the exact set of issues the movie you proudly didn't watch was addressing.
(Full disclosure: I'm one of the weird 27% who actually liked it)
Perhaps, but the ultimate ancestor in this thread was referring to "multi-junction cells have breached 46%", which tend to made of things like Indium Gallium Phosphide, Gallium Arsenide, Germanium, and Indium Gallium Arsenide.
I believe the point was that that we know how to make them far more efficient than 26%, if we really want to. It just tends to require making them of relatively exotic things that probably aren't worth the trouble.
The American agricultural industry has been consolidating for years - small family farms are in a slow but inevitably decline. Those big corporate farms have a great advantage in simple economy of scale.
...and that I think is the answer. When most people think "farmer", they think of a single family-owned and worked operation. Those are still around, but the industry is increasingly large corporations who hire out all the labor. Equipment maintenance is just another bit of labor for them to hire out, and doing it to another large company (eg: the manufacturer) is probably simpler for the books anyway. Deere is likely designing their equipment for those operations. Traditional small farmers are just not their market anymore.
Or have a service person drive out to the machine?
...when they can fit you into their schedule? During harvest time, when everyone else is also discovering their harvesters need service, but you need the crops harvested NOW? Yeahhhh.....no.
Growing up in a farming community I know that many farmers do a lot of their own maintenance on equipment.
My Grandfather thought nothing of stopping a piece of farm equipment and rebuilding its engine in-situ. That's the thing about being a farmer; you have to be able to do *everything* yourself. You can't exactly call the Auto club and have your harvester towed back to the dealer. At least I thought you couldn't. Apparently, that's what Deere expects you to do now. Not sure why anyone who isn't a big corporate farm managed by remote MBAs would agree to do that.
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring...
You're kidding, right? There were at one point so many Republican candidates that they had to split the field in two and hold the same debate twice to get them all in. There are a ton of things you can say about how the Republican Party got to this point, but lack of better choices is not one of them.
... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites
*chortle* I couldn't even count how many articles I read about organized Republican efforts to stop Trump. At one point they even tried having all the other candidates to collude on which states they would compete in, in hopes they'd each win their strongest states and throw the nomination into the convention. The only reason you didn't hear Trump supporters screaming "Shenanigans" like Sanders supporters it is because nothing they tried came close to working.
The Republicans had preferred party candidates early on (eg: Bush and Grahm); candidates dropped out due to lack of electoral support roughly in the order of how reasonable they were, which meant the preferred candidates were among the first folks to go. I won't claim to know what their voters were all thinking, but if someone were to argue that Republican primary voters were voting entirely based on who the party leaders DIDN'T want, I'd have trouble arguing against it.
Trump won the nomination because, given a menu of 20+, he's the guy Republican voters wanted. If you think that's a problem, your problem is with that party and its voters, not with its nomination methods.
Look at the revised map. Most of northern Africa is wider than the U.S. (at the same latitude).
...Which might partly explain why North America was far easier for Eurasians to colonize than tropical Africa. A large part of the rest is that A lot of North America had biomes that supported Eurasian crops and livestock, while most of sub-Saharan Africa does not (until you get all the way down to the tip, which is not-coincidentally the only place Eurasians successfully pushed out the natives and set up shop for themselves).
Why limit the solution to 2D maps on paper? You can get a much better visualization on a computer...
..or on a globe. When I was a kid, not only did my "Social Studies" classrooms all have globes, but I had one in my room. They were pretty cheap and ubiquitous. No electricity required, and they can still be made from paper if you like.
So let me get this straight, Africa and South America have that much more land and natural resources than the first world countries - and still can't do nearly as well in terms of development and wealth? That would tend to make one even more dismissive of cultures on those larger landmasses that cannot pull it together.
...unless one reads Guns, Germs, & Steel, or its equivalent content out of a textbook somewhere, which explains all this rather nicely. IMHO its much better to take these questions head-on, rather than ignore them.
(Executive summary: Having a large amount of land at the same latitude is really important to any agricultural society. This is because the "resources" that matter are ultimately domesticable crops and animals, both of which tend to not do well outside of their home latitudes. So Eurasia wins.).
538 says you're wrong
Summary: 2/3 of the hikes are directly due to states cutting their funding to their state university system, forcing them to make up the difference through tuition. Public higher education used to be free in a lot of states. IOW, states for decades have been jointly deciding to divest from public higher education, and use the money elsewhere (in my state, that's on tax cuts to wealthy residents). If their kids are the only ones who can afford college now, I'm guessing you won't hear them complaining much.
This gets us about 95% of the way through the plot of Real Genius. All that remains is for Val Kilmer to distract everyone by hitting on Melania while someone else hacks the laser to fill Trump Tower with popcorn.
Its interesting the WotC is doing something, but honestly there have been computerized D&D aids as long as there has been D&D. One of the first real computer programs I conceived, designed, and wrote myself was a TRS-80 BASIC program to quickly create character sheets back in 1979. Back then the official rules (as I read them anyway) said you were supposed to roll for all abilities, and then decide if you wanted to use that set of rolls. It wasn't uncommon to blow an entire gaming session just in character creation. Very time consuming if you wanted something to fit in the stat-limitations of a class like a Paladin...unless you have a computer.
That edition's GM manual also had rules for randomly generating dungeons on the fly (using die rolls). That could be computerized too, allowing for someone to efficiently GM their own solo campaigns. Sort of like a computer/pen-n-paper hybrid Diablo.
Uh huh. Sure. You worked their for 15 years, but it was so bad, right?
The thing about deathmarch orgs is that the pay is pretty good, if you can live through the stress. Being young and otherwise healthy helps.
I work at BAE and have a disability. HR was basically worthless but my managers have been ok.
So you are essentially confirming the relative behavior of HR there.
If he was doing encryption work it was probably going to be classified and classified work can't be done remotely, but you also aren't going to be working nights or be on call unless he was specifically being hired for special duties which would have been in the job description.
The first half is 100% true, the second half, not so much. It depends a lot on the classification and how security is enforced at your facility. I've worked at places that were just like normal tech offices, except that nobody who wasn't a "US Person" was allowed in. I've also worked at places where OT was common, but truly wild hours were a PITA because there were special procedures to open up and close down the building. That was a job doing COMSEC (encryption) work. At the fullest extreme, I interviewed for one job where OT was flat out impossible, because the job site was only accessible via a plane with blacked-out windows that flew you in at 9, and out at 5.
but the discrimination line about "stereotypical male breadwinner" is complete bullshit
Yes, and no. They advertise their work-family balance. So there are two possibilities here: Either that is actually complete BS (which is fraud), or they are being selective about who they give that perk to (which opens them up to this charge when they decide not to give it to a man).
Obama's "you didn't build that" bullshit cost more people more jobs that you can imagine.
...which totally explains why February jobs #'s were even higher in February of 2016, 2015, and 2013.
I have a much simpler explanation: Its February.
Not "tech", but nerd". There are some fields nerdier than economics, but not a lot of them.
When I was trying to prevent data sniffing on a site where a unique key had to be entered to view data (and/or QR code scan), I did a growing time delay on repeated attempts combined with a CAPTCHA on the third and subsequent tries. After 15 tries, you get false negative results (real keys still come out as failures/404).
...after 1500 tries, it gives you false positive results. Logs you a fake website with full of Barney episodes mislabeled as porn.
Password has to be between 6 and 10 characters? Great, that cuts out a huge range of potential passwords.
I once had a website password checker kick back several generation attempts because the password was too long. I think their limit was 8 characters.
After manually putting my lower jaw back in place, I decided not to use that website anymore.
Then don't put it on the network if you're concerned.
That might not do the trick. HDMI cables transmit data too.
Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
"intelligence" is government-speak for information they took from someone. If your desk safe has a factory combination that always works, that isn't "intelligence". The contents of what they found inside your safe when they used that combo is intelligence.
So no, its not their job to warn US citizens if they are vulnerable domestically. That's called "domestic counter-intelligence", and is explicitly the FBI's job.
Sure, it would be nice if the CIA did it anyway. But if that burns a method they are finding useful themselves to do things that ARE their job, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Netflix is a service, while DVRs are service delivery devices. Not only are they not mutually-exclusive, but they can be complimentary. I watched Netflix on my TiVo for years. When I cord-cut, I had to go shopping for a new device for the TV (tried Chromecast, settled on Roku).
Comparing the two directly would be like comparing the number of people with gmail accounts with the number of people who own cable-modems. They are nearly orthogonal things.