I might actually consider this or one of the Samsung competitors. I don't go hiking/canoeing all that often but when I do, carrying a phone is PITA. And I feel compelled to carry one for emergency situations. Also at the water park with my kid. Although I may still go with a cheaper GSM watch that can receive texts and make a 911 call in an emergency. It means a higher monthly fee. But even with the IP68 rating, I'm still scared to submerge an expensive device.
Yeah like those garbage trucks with the robotic arms that can pick up the trash barrel and dump it into the hopper. Now there are two guys on the trucks instead of three.
Why does hyper threading require speculative execution? I'm not up to date on the latest in hyper-threading but the idea is that if you have an integer unit and a floating point unit, hyper-threading lets you treat them as two cores. If the OS implements this well, you can get some additional performance. If not it can actually be worse. The article liked to in the grandparent *speculates* that this may yield a useful timing attack. But so far not has been found.
I have no idea how your comment ties into the article. And it doesn't even tie into minimum wage increases. Every employer understands the follow-on effect. If a brand-new, less productive person is going to make a certain wage, those who are more productive and have been around longer demand higher pay. When minimum wage goes up, you have to increase the pay not just of those making less than minimum wage. It's one of the standard arguments against this. And again, this is in Amazon's statement. "Amazon said those who are already making $15 an hour will see an increase in pay but did not specify how much."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news...
Amazon actually put out a statement on this that isn't in the TFS. Surveys showed that current employees would prefer more predictable pay to the bonuses. Makes sense when your income is relatively low. Bonuses are nice but you can't count on them. Being assured of a paycheck is more useful short-term. Now maybe Amazon is full of it in their statement but TFS is one-sided in a misleading way.
Not sure I agree with this. I once had a roommate who employed people to sell flowers. Yes, the guys you see standing at traffic lights. His only requirement for the job was that they could properly make change. (i.e if somebody gives them $20 for $8 worth of flowers, they could manage to correctly give make $12). That vast majority of the people who he interviewed couldn't do it.
Who said (s)he did nothing? Maybe they got five PhDs online during that time. Or invented a cure for cancer or solved world hunger or something. Whatever they did, it was way better than if they had just manually entered data for years.
My employer would have something to say about it. They would issue me burners. Or more likely have the local office give me a loaner while I'm there so I don't have to carry devices across the border. This just imposes a huge expense on business travelers in order to apprehend the dumbest of criminals.
If this seems counter-intuitive and you want to see it for yourself rather than read a study, watch a NASCAR race once. You'll notice the million dollar, best drivers in the world NEVER slam on their brakes when a crash is happening in front of them. They always steer.
The goal of NASCAR driving is not to drive the safest way possible. If it was there would be a 15mph limit on the race track. Also on a NASCAR track, you can go around an obstacle without having to worry that there will be an oncoming car. Also, you are 100% familiar with the track, so you can calculate much quicker.
In a road driving situation, if there is a sudden stop ahead, slamming on the brakes carries a known risk. You've pointed it out well. Trying to go around on a shoulder? What if there is a bicycle you haven't seen yet? In the oncoming lane? What if a vehicle is just entering the intersection ahead.
Hitting the brakes may or may not sacrifice expected value but, even if it does (as you assert), it reduces variance. Even an introduction to game theory would tell you that you don't risk dying or killing a pedestrian in order to avoid an accident that is sure to result in property damage and painful but non life-threatening injuries.
Notice that we have auto-braking but not auto-swerving technology.
How do you know it is safe for the environment? And cow shit is not so environmentally safe. Runs off into water ways and causes all kinds of problems.
It's one of the reasons why you don't have as many girls being diagnosed with ASD, they'll spend huge amounts of time and energy camouflaging the symptoms and rehearsing so that people don't find out.
I don't usually reply to ACs but thought it was better than down modding. The defining characteristic of ASD is not caring about these things at all. So this doesn't really make any sense.
Every year, there are hundreds of studies that attempt to prove the Roundup is the devil. So far there haven't been any smoking guns. At this point, I'm cynical.
Sure it does. Whatever the reason, if you scan a package and the reader says you can't deliver it, you need to bring it back. You don't get to take it home with you! Maybe it wasn't a dummy package. Maybe it was a real one that scanned wrong. You still don't steal it.
If that water gets poured on the desert and percolates into underground aquifers, cold it be a means to prevent sea level rise and have a positive environmental impact?
Per the article, all of the data is double-blinded. So yes you can buy this data. You buy the whole data set and you'll get the Trump data if they use Mastercard. In most cases, it's probably hard to actually pull out the PII but I bet this trove can be hacked to look for public figures who spend large sums since there is a lot of public information on their whereabouts at various times et cetera.
I don't quite understand this comment. We're not talking about the people who *aren't* killed by police. This is about people who *are* killed by police. And minorities represent a disproportional share of these people. A lot of this seems to be a vicious cycle where minorities are suspicious of the police and, as a result, do things that aren't objectively reasonable (like run from the police even though they've committed no crimes). This causes the police to react which then leads to less trust of the police. The onus of breaking this cycle, though, can't be put on the aggrieved. We have to find a way to turn the ship.
Minority communities may or may not benefit from additional policing. But they would benefit much more from clean drinking water, quality child care, and meaningful educational opportunities. What would be even better is if we had integrated communities rather than majority and minority communities.
If you walk around with a physical crypto-wallet, somebody is going to forcibly take it from you and worry about getting to the contents later. It doesn't really matter whether it is "hackable" or not because once somebody steals the wallet, you don't have the crypto-currency anymore. Even if it were "unhackable" (probably a laughable statement), it's like walking around with a locked briefcase full of cash. Everybody can see you have it if you get robbed, you're out the money, even if the perpetrator never manages to open the briefcase.
These techies do like to overrate their own importance and like to claim their friends look to them for recommendations. Maybe that would influence 0.1% of the users, the remaining 99.9% buy whichever phone looked best at a price they can afford.
I think that you are overstating the numbers here. People who root their phones likely don't have any friends to influence.
Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.
Structures may depreciate over time. But the land increases in value. Otherwise real estate wouldn't be considered an investment. Also even though the structure is "depreciated" the cost of new construction is increasing so the market value may actually still be higher than when purchased. In some very low cost areas people look at a house as somewhere to live and they die there and don't give a darn what it's worth at the end. In other places, the appreciation is part of their financial plans.
Seriously in your shirt pocket? I'm not buying that. I've tried. You bend over to tie your shoes and your phone falls out. Shirt pockets can't hold a phone securely.
Slashdot Mirror
I might actually consider this or one of the Samsung competitors. I don't go hiking/canoeing all that often but when I do, carrying a phone is PITA. And I feel compelled to carry one for emergency situations. Also at the water park with my kid. Although I may still go with a cheaper GSM watch that can receive texts and make a 911 call in an emergency. It means a higher monthly fee. But even with the IP68 rating, I'm still scared to submerge an expensive device.
This will probably get moderated funny, but I really have no idea what they mean by two-way wireless charging and would love to know.
Yeah like those garbage trucks with the robotic arms that can pick up the trash barrel and dump it into the hopper. Now there are two guys on the trucks instead of three.
Why does hyper threading require speculative execution? I'm not up to date on the latest in hyper-threading but the idea is that if you have an integer unit and a floating point unit, hyper-threading lets you treat them as two cores. If the OS implements this well, you can get some additional performance. If not it can actually be worse. The article liked to in the grandparent *speculates* that this may yield a useful timing attack. But so far not has been found.
I have no idea how your comment ties into the article. And it doesn't even tie into minimum wage increases. Every employer understands the follow-on effect. If a brand-new, less productive person is going to make a certain wage, those who are more productive and have been around longer demand higher pay. When minimum wage goes up, you have to increase the pay not just of those making less than minimum wage. It's one of the standard arguments against this. And again, this is in Amazon's statement. "Amazon said those who are already making $15 an hour will see an increase in pay but did not specify how much." https://finance.yahoo.com/news...
Amazon actually put out a statement on this that isn't in the TFS. Surveys showed that current employees would prefer more predictable pay to the bonuses. Makes sense when your income is relatively low. Bonuses are nice but you can't count on them. Being assured of a paycheck is more useful short-term. Now maybe Amazon is full of it in their statement but TFS is one-sided in a misleading way.
Not sure I agree with this. I once had a roommate who employed people to sell flowers. Yes, the guys you see standing at traffic lights. His only requirement for the job was that they could properly make change. (i.e if somebody gives them $20 for $8 worth of flowers, they could manage to correctly give make $12). That vast majority of the people who he interviewed couldn't do it.
Who said (s)he did nothing? Maybe they got five PhDs online during that time. Or invented a cure for cancer or solved world hunger or something. Whatever they did, it was way better than if they had just manually entered data for years.
My employer would have something to say about it. They would issue me burners. Or more likely have the local office give me a loaner while I'm there so I don't have to carry devices across the border. This just imposes a huge expense on business travelers in order to apprehend the dumbest of criminals.
We haven't magically evolved somehow. We're still vulnerable to the same crap we always were.
But the flu has evolved to be less virulent as killing the host is not a good survival strategy for a virus.
If this seems counter-intuitive and you want to see it for yourself rather than read a study, watch a NASCAR race once. You'll notice the million dollar, best drivers in the world NEVER slam on their brakes when a crash is happening in front of them. They always steer.
The goal of NASCAR driving is not to drive the safest way possible. If it was there would be a 15mph limit on the race track. Also on a NASCAR track, you can go around an obstacle without having to worry that there will be an oncoming car. Also, you are 100% familiar with the track, so you can calculate much quicker. In a road driving situation, if there is a sudden stop ahead, slamming on the brakes carries a known risk. You've pointed it out well. Trying to go around on a shoulder? What if there is a bicycle you haven't seen yet? In the oncoming lane? What if a vehicle is just entering the intersection ahead. Hitting the brakes may or may not sacrifice expected value but, even if it does (as you assert), it reduces variance. Even an introduction to game theory would tell you that you don't risk dying or killing a pedestrian in order to avoid an accident that is sure to result in property damage and painful but non life-threatening injuries. Notice that we have auto-braking but not auto-swerving technology.
How do you know it is safe for the environment? And cow shit is not so environmentally safe. Runs off into water ways and causes all kinds of problems.
It's one of the reasons why you don't have as many girls being diagnosed with ASD, they'll spend huge amounts of time and energy camouflaging the symptoms and rehearsing so that people don't find out.
I don't usually reply to ACs but thought it was better than down modding. The defining characteristic of ASD is not caring about these things at all. So this doesn't really make any sense.
Every year, there are hundreds of studies that attempt to prove the Roundup is the devil. So far there haven't been any smoking guns. At this point, I'm cynical.
No but Walmart does have shrinking, like everybody else. Around 1%.
Sure it does. Whatever the reason, if you scan a package and the reader says you can't deliver it, you need to bring it back. You don't get to take it home with you! Maybe it wasn't a dummy package. Maybe it was a real one that scanned wrong. You still don't steal it.
If that water gets poured on the desert and percolates into underground aquifers, cold it be a means to prevent sea level rise and have a positive environmental impact?
Per the article, all of the data is double-blinded. So yes you can buy this data. You buy the whole data set and you'll get the Trump data if they use Mastercard. In most cases, it's probably hard to actually pull out the PII but I bet this trove can be hacked to look for public figures who spend large sums since there is a lot of public information on their whereabouts at various times et cetera.
I don't quite understand this comment. We're not talking about the people who *aren't* killed by police. This is about people who *are* killed by police. And minorities represent a disproportional share of these people. A lot of this seems to be a vicious cycle where minorities are suspicious of the police and, as a result, do things that aren't objectively reasonable (like run from the police even though they've committed no crimes). This causes the police to react which then leads to less trust of the police. The onus of breaking this cycle, though, can't be put on the aggrieved. We have to find a way to turn the ship.
Minority communities may or may not benefit from additional policing. But they would benefit much more from clean drinking water, quality child care, and meaningful educational opportunities. What would be even better is if we had integrated communities rather than majority and minority communities.
The OP was being funny but I think we should start a version of this here in the US. We'll be rich.
If you walk around with a physical crypto-wallet, somebody is going to forcibly take it from you and worry about getting to the contents later. It doesn't really matter whether it is "hackable" or not because once somebody steals the wallet, you don't have the crypto-currency anymore. Even if it were "unhackable" (probably a laughable statement), it's like walking around with a locked briefcase full of cash. Everybody can see you have it if you get robbed, you're out the money, even if the perpetrator never manages to open the briefcase.
These techies do like to overrate their own importance and like to claim their friends look to them for recommendations. Maybe that would influence 0.1% of the users, the remaining 99.9% buy whichever phone looked best at a price they can afford.
I think that you are overstating the numbers here. People who root their phones likely don't have any friends to influence.
Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.
Structures may depreciate over time. But the land increases in value. Otherwise real estate wouldn't be considered an investment. Also even though the structure is "depreciated" the cost of new construction is increasing so the market value may actually still be higher than when purchased. In some very low cost areas people look at a house as somewhere to live and they die there and don't give a darn what it's worth at the end. In other places, the appreciation is part of their financial plans.
Seriously in your shirt pocket? I'm not buying that. I've tried. You bend over to tie your shoes and your phone falls out. Shirt pockets can't hold a phone securely.