And what could Zuckerberg say that any other top Facebook executive such as the CTO or chief product officer could't say. This is just posturing by politicians and clickbait by BeauHD
The article was mostly hand waving and false assumptions. But with regard to transmission line efficiencies, if it was cost effective we would do it regardless of how the power is generated. That should tell you something.
In scenario 1, they imagined wind and solar installations that would be sufficient to supply 100% of the U.S. electrical needs
That's all they did, imagine it could happen. They may as well imaging that they can flap their arms and fly to the Moon - it's just as likely. There are a few places where wind is cost effective, maybe a couple of tropical deserts where solar isn't the worst choice. But the rest is fantasy.
The article is nonsense. You can't buy crypocurrency with a student loan. You buy things with money. Saying this money was student loan and the money you spent on spring break was from Daddy is absurd. It's all one pool of available funds, trying to compartment it into this money and that money will get you into trouble every time.
A friend of a friend got a part-time job loading coin-op candy machines. Rather than being paid by the hour, he was paid by the number of machines on his route; working fast or slow didn't matter. It didn't take him long to realize that the popular candy bars were the first to go and took the most time to restock. But one brand, the "Zero Bar" was distinctly unpopular. Before long, he had filled all the machines with Zero Bars and was able to keep the machines full with virtually no effort.
Trying to get people to take the full regimen of drugs is good, and this idea seems like a reasonable approach.
But what's missing from the article is how much impact it actually had. They didn't mention what percent of patients follow through by calling every day, how many start back up on the meds after they get the nag text message, etc. When the success rate isn't given you have to wonder why.
The light payload and vertical launch tell me that SpaceX was more interested in having a successful soft landing than anything else. That's one of the major trade-offs in the reusable rocket approach, you need to compromise what you can launch in order to have enough fuel to recover the rocket.
Only if you drive 100 miles to work. For most commuters an overnight charge will last a few days. Plus, chargers in work parking lots will become commonplace; we're not there yet but the infrastructure is slowly being built out. A couple more years and all the major car manufacturers will be selling them profitably.
There was no ethical difference to users when Facebook slurped up data and sold it to Democrats versus when Cambridge Analytics slurped up data and sold it to Republicans.
Sure there was a difference to Facebook, but to the rest of us it's the same thing.
As I read the article, their model concludes that viruses are mostly spread to fellow passengers in close proximity. They then note that this isn't the observed phenomenon:
Then how can we explain case reports documenting the over 40% of transmission of influenza and SARS to nontribe passengers?
Their explanation is that their model is correct but the observed data is wrong...Okay.
I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen. Trump has been incredibly successful in watering down the meaning of fake news to the point where it gets applied to anything
Calling stories that are intentionally biased or dishonest is applying the word fake to "anything"? I disagree.
If Google wants to set a standard for journalism they accept,
they should hold everyone to it.
I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen.
You can try to define "fake" to exclude "biased, and occasionally quite dishonest" but that misses the more important question: Should we allow biased and deceptive stories from news sources that millions of people consider trustworthy journalists, but go ballistic on fringe sites that are untrustworthy?
My own sense is that biased and/or dishonest stories on sites like NYT and WaPo are more influential than blatantly fake stories that someone with an agenda circulates on Facebook. Saying one is fake but the more harmful one is only dishonest but not fake obfuscates the real problem.
Slashdot Mirror
And what could Zuckerberg say that any other top Facebook executive such as the CTO or chief product officer could't say. This is just posturing by politicians and clickbait by BeauHD
Yea, it's way more fun trying to find a curly bracket in the wrong place than having Python point to the exact line you have wrong.
Including third party cookies.
But in the end I'm sure FB, Google, and others will find a way, because there's too much money in it.
GP is correct. This isn't an efficient pit crew, it's a flaw in the rules that allowed a change in race state during VSC.
The article was mostly hand waving and false assumptions. But with regard to transmission line efficiencies, if it was cost effective we would do it regardless of how the power is generated. That should tell you something.
All this at a time when the solar energy sector is shrinking due to the end of the subsidies that kept it going.
In scenario 1, they imagined wind and solar installations that would be sufficient to supply 100% of the U.S. electrical needs
That's all they did, imagine it could happen. They may as well imaging that they can flap their arms and fly to the Moon - it's just as likely. There are a few places where wind is cost effective, maybe a couple of tropical deserts where solar isn't the worst choice. But the rest is fantasy.
The article is nonsense. You can't buy crypocurrency with a student loan. You buy things with money. Saying this money was student loan and the money you spent on spring break was from Daddy is absurd. It's all one pool of available funds, trying to compartment it into this money and that money will get you into trouble every time.
A friend of a friend got a part-time job loading coin-op candy machines. Rather than being paid by the hour, he was paid by the number of machines on his route; working fast or slow didn't matter. It didn't take him long to realize that the popular candy bars were the first to go and took the most time to restock. But one brand, the "Zero Bar" was distinctly unpopular. Before long, he had filled all the machines with Zero Bars and was able to keep the machines full with virtually no effort.
The words "Future Video" might be a hint. Slashdot got used.
Slashvertisement, not used.
Trying to get people to take the full regimen of drugs is good, and this idea seems like a reasonable approach.
But what's missing from the article is how much impact it actually had. They didn't mention what percent of patients follow through by calling every day, how many start back up on the meds after they get the nag text message, etc. When the success rate isn't given you have to wonder why.
All those sound like welcome enhancements. But please, do not change the UI again.
The light payload and vertical launch tell me that SpaceX was more interested in having a successful soft landing than anything else. That's one of the major trade-offs in the reusable rocket approach, you need to compromise what you can launch in order to have enough fuel to recover the rocket.
That's correct. They're currently manufacturing in low volume (and losing money). They won't scale up production until they can make a profit.
Only if you drive 100 miles to work. For most commuters an overnight charge will last a few days. Plus, chargers in work parking lots will become commonplace; we're not there yet but the infrastructure is slowly being built out. A couple more years and all the major car manufacturers will be selling them profitably.
I don't recall anyone saying "never". Most agreed that battery technology had a way to go though.
There was no ethical difference to users when Facebook slurped up data and sold it to Democrats versus when Cambridge Analytics slurped up data and sold it to Republicans.
Sure there was a difference to Facebook, but to the rest of us it's the same thing.
CEO of General Motors, trained as an electrical engineer. She's going to beat Tesla in electric and self-driving vehicles.
When the oceans rise due to global warming everyone will have enough water.
I probably would've said Sheryl Sandberg.
I've never understood this strategy, exactly. I mean, I know why Google/YouTube is doing it, but what's in it for the advertisers?
It sounds like an admission by YouTube that the ads aren't generating enough revenue to pay the royalties.
Then how can we explain case reports documenting the over 40% of transmission of influenza and SARS to nontribe passengers?
Their explanation is that their model is correct but the observed data is wrong...Okay.
I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen. Trump has been incredibly successful in watering down the meaning of fake news to the point where it gets applied to anything
Calling stories that are intentionally biased or dishonest is applying the word fake to "anything"? I disagree.
If Google wants to set a standard for journalism they accept, they should hold everyone to it.
I'd give you biased, and occasionally quite dishonest, but they're not going out of their way to invent things that did not happen.
You can try to define "fake" to exclude "biased, and occasionally quite dishonest" but that misses the more important question: Should we allow biased and deceptive stories from news sources that millions of people consider trustworthy journalists, but go ballistic on fringe sites that are untrustworthy?
My own sense is that biased and/or dishonest stories on sites like NYT and WaPo are more influential than blatantly fake stories that someone with an agenda circulates on Facebook. Saying one is fake but the more harmful one is only dishonest but not fake obfuscates the real problem.
Now the TSA will want to download data from my underwear along with my laptop and phone.
Your laptop and phone download data from your underwear?
No, his laptop and phone are in his underwear.