Not really odd, since given any two groups, one of them is likely to be better than the other. It would be odd if they were exactly the same.
Also, policies implemented in one presidency often don't take effect until a later presidency (for example: Carter hired Paul Volcker who didn't really manage to tame inflation until the Reagan administration). Anyone who doesn't take that into account is prima facie an idiot.
But don't worry, I'm sure you take such things heavily into account when the statistic doesn't confirm your biases.
no one is writing UWP apps. The idea used to at least make a tiny bit of sense when there was a promise (however slight) that MS might have a foothold in the mobile market. Now that UWP covers only Windows 10 and Xbox One, there's not as compelling an argument to make for its "cross-platform" capabilities. So, companies that want to target Windows only still write native or C# Win32 apps.,
The other counter-argument: you'll just have to rewrite the app when Microsoft changes the API. Win32 is a pain to use, but at least it's stable.
I can't speak for Arabic, but Mandarin is fairly easy to type with modern input methods. You can even draw it onto your touchscreen (or onto your trackpad) if you're hardcore.
ok, so I read your post, and it is really odd that every economic policy you don't like is Republican, and every economic policy you do like is Democrat. What are the odds of that?
Most likely, you have internal bias, which was compounded by mainly reading things you agree with. Seek out things you disagree with and read them. Your cognitive biases will disappear.
If we're talking about political skill, one of the (few?) skills Trump has, is making excuses. And somehow convincing people to accept them. I guess every politician has that skill to some degree, but it's strong in the orange one.
For the most part, the president neither deserves credit nor blame for recessions or growth. There are too many pieces to an economy, and the president is only one small part of it.
The primary problem of The Circle is it's boring. Even the trailer is boring. They couldn't get enough interesting parts in the movie to fill a whole trailer. Even Antitrust did a better job of being a good movie.
Silicon Valley is a show about finance and entrepreneurs. The tech aspect is either glossed over, seen through the eyes of a non-technical founder (or more likely, writer), or sometimes outright wrong.
In other words, it focuses on everything I hate about this valley, and glosses over everything I don't like.
You know.. thank you.. I don't really understand your Congress, or your system of checks and balances.. because, as I said during the campaign - I'm just a caveman!
Change it to a slum-lord instead of a lawyer and you have our current president.
Well if you aren't able to understand any more deeply than that, we can discuss at that level.
The actual text (5th amendment) is this "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
It is your (poorly justified) claim that giving a PIN in a criminal case is witnessing against oneself. You are wrong: as the judge in this case pointed out (and the judge's opinion matters much more than yours). Giving the PIN merely proves that the phone belongs to the person. If the ownership of the phone isn't in doubt, then no facts will be proved or disproved by the mere act of unlocking the phone. It is thus not witnessing against oneself.
You might not like that, but it's the social contract, as interpreted by the judge, and you haven't given a coherent reason why the judge is wrong. Why the judge's interpretation of the text is worse than yours.
That's kind of a vague description of the concept of "social contract,"* but to really be a good explanation you need to say why. Why is that the social contract, instead of "everyone gets a cucumber before testifying?" What goal was trying to be achieved, and why? For deep understanding, it helps to explain the historical background: what actual, real problems were they trying to solve?
*The concept of social contract is different than what you described because it is not something 'given' by founders, royalty, fathers, or anyone else. A social contract is an agreement between peers: we all as members of society.
It's not even a matter of becoming a genius.....the real question is whether it's so easy to write code more efficiently than the original programmers from the 80s, who lived and breathed efficiency.
A) If they couldn't do it more efficiently, how easy is it going to be to find 10,000 speedup?
B) The major potential for speed in modern days (compared the 80s) is parallelization......but that could involve a major rewrite that is not nearly worth the prize money offered. There must be a reason NASA hasn't done this themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
What are the chances that Cassini will collide with some asteroid or rock orbiting Saturn before ending its mission?
Windows phone 7, windows phone 8, windows phone 9, windows phone 10
Sarcasm?
Not really odd, since given any two groups, one of them is likely to be better than the other. It would be odd if they were exactly the same.
Also, policies implemented in one presidency often don't take effect until a later presidency (for example: Carter hired Paul Volcker who didn't really manage to tame inflation until the Reagan administration). Anyone who doesn't take that into account is prima facie an idiot.
But don't worry, I'm sure you take such things heavily into account when the statistic doesn't confirm your biases.
no one is writing UWP apps. The idea used to at least make a tiny bit of sense when there was a promise (however slight) that MS might have a foothold in the mobile market. Now that UWP covers only Windows 10 and Xbox One, there's not as compelling an argument to make for its "cross-platform" capabilities. So, companies that want to target Windows only still write native or C# Win32 apps.,
The other counter-argument: you'll just have to rewrite the app when Microsoft changes the API. Win32 is a pain to use, but at least it's stable.
But in terms of the future of the EU [English] is by far not the most important.
Why?
I can't speak for Arabic, but Mandarin is fairly easy to type with modern input methods. You can even draw it onto your touchscreen (or onto your trackpad) if you're hardcore.
As AC says above me, a simplified version of mandarin, perhaps with a romanized alphabet will almost certainly be the top language one day.
Why? English already is the lingua franca.
Which sounds the healthier attitude to you?
tbh the French approach seems healthier to me.....it ensures ancient documents will be more likely to be understood.
ok, so I read your post, and it is really odd that every economic policy you don't like is Republican, and every economic policy you do like is Democrat. What are the odds of that?
Most likely, you have internal bias, which was compounded by mainly reading things you agree with. Seek out things you disagree with and read them. Your cognitive biases will disappear.
If we're talking about political skill, one of the (few?) skills Trump has, is making excuses. And somehow convincing people to accept them. I guess every politician has that skill to some degree, but it's strong in the orange one.
For the most part, the president neither deserves credit nor blame for recessions or growth. There are too many pieces to an economy, and the president is only one small part of it.
I mineRedstone.
The primary problem of The Circle is it's boring. Even the trailer is boring. They couldn't get enough interesting parts in the movie to fill a whole trailer. Even Antitrust did a better job of being a good movie.
Silicon Valley is a show about finance and entrepreneurs. The tech aspect is either glossed over, seen through the eyes of a non-technical founder (or more likely, writer), or sometimes outright wrong.
In other words, it focuses on everything I hate about this valley, and glosses over everything I don't like.
You know.. thank you.. I don't really understand your Congress, or your system of checks and balances.. because, as I said during the campaign - I'm just a caveman!
Change it to a slum-lord instead of a lawyer and you have our current president.
Any time someone is proclaiming doom now I look for the agenda behind it - and sadly these days it is always there.
It's not "sadly," that's a good thing. It's when the doom is real that you really want to start worrying.
Well if you aren't able to understand any more deeply than that, we can discuss at that level.
The actual text (5th amendment) is this "nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
It is your (poorly justified) claim that giving a PIN in a criminal case is witnessing against oneself. You are wrong: as the judge in this case pointed out (and the judge's opinion matters much more than yours). Giving the PIN merely proves that the phone belongs to the person. If the ownership of the phone isn't in doubt, then no facts will be proved or disproved by the mere act of unlocking the phone. It is thus not witnessing against oneself.
You might not like that, but it's the social contract, as interpreted by the judge, and you haven't given a coherent reason why the judge is wrong. Why the judge's interpretation of the text is worse than yours.
and the US treasury (they always share in the wealth)...
Wow, so kind of them to share.
Nah. The assumption is that they are better at efficiency than I am. Maybe you are better than I :)
That's kind of a vague description of the concept of "social contract,"* but to really be a good explanation you need to say why. Why is that the social contract, instead of "everyone gets a cucumber before testifying?" What goal was trying to be achieved, and why? For deep understanding, it helps to explain the historical background: what actual, real problems were they trying to solve?
*The concept of social contract is different than what you described because it is not something 'given' by founders, royalty, fathers, or anyone else. A social contract is an agreement between peers: we all as members of society.
Explain why that should be a right in the first place. Do you believe God gave those rights? Or some mystical natural force?
It's not even a matter of becoming a genius.....the real question is whether it's so easy to write code more efficiently than the original programmers from the 80s, who lived and breathed efficiency.
A) If they couldn't do it more efficiently, how easy is it going to be to find 10,000 speedup?
B) The major potential for speed in modern days (compared the 80s) is parallelization......but that could involve a major rewrite that is not nearly worth the prize money offered. There must be a reason NASA hasn't done this themselves.
Not $55k, half of that. You have to share it with someone else.
"This is the ultimate 'geek' dream assignment,"
Actually it sounds like what I call "work."