Governments are pretty distinct from the agents of a given religion in that they can, and do, act in concert on a wide variety of subjects based on decisions from their senior leaders.
There is no head of Judaism, and lots of Catholics would tell the Pope to mind his own business if he said all good Catholics should tamper with votes. On the other hand, we've all seen news about despots and tyrants, and know how they coordinate the actions of their underlings.
Sure. Why not? I would have a field day in court if they tried to stop me, and civil liberties organizations would be lining up to help.
Lots of police forces have tried to confiscate cell phones and destroy video recordings that they find inconvenient. That has uniformly been disapproved by courts.
Other religions believe that newer instructions -- for example, the New Testament -- or interpretations can supersede or limit previous scriptures. The Koran specifically forbids that. Try reading it one day.
Even if we are inclined to take the word of the representative of a government distinguished for its dishonest and corruption, that quote doesn't establish that Bush saw it as a war against people who followed the wrong religion. It strongly suggests a quote different motivation, in fact.
Not in the United States. US governments cannot compel most people to speak, or compel false speech. The only recognized limitation to date is that someone offering goods or services to the public may be compelled to disclose relevant information to prospective or actual customers.
Now, some people may choose to lie, perhaps on advice of lawyers, rather than fight a First Amendment battle in court. That doesn't mean the government (or any court order) compels them to lie. But a lot of people choose not to; that is the principle under which a warrant canary works.
If you don't know programming, don't try to pretend. Variables are typed if they are constrained to only contain values of a particular type. Values have a runtime type that may be narrower than their variable's type. C-family languages have typed variables. Python does not.
Stack traces do not tell you the life history of a value. It may have been wrong in a function called somewhere else entirely, then gone into a container that got sent to a different thread or process, maybe altered by some type-agnostic operation, and only caused a problem long after the root cause occurred. Congratulations on only working with toy code, such that the stack trace tells you everything you need to know.
It seldom is, because Python variables are untyped. You need to take back to figure out where the value (not the variable) came from, and why the value has the wrong type.
Most of my time is spent working on an app with C++ at the low levels, Python at the high levels, and Perl/JS for web stuff. I am one of two developers who primarily does C++, we have two who primarily do Python, and one who primarily does the web bits. The Python code unsurprisingly does a lot of database operations and IPC, so many of its endpoint types are strings. I am always shocked how many of the Python-domain commits are only to add or remove type conversions that testing missed. That problem is almost entirely absent in C++, with its strong static typing, and in Perl and JS, with their mostly "DWIM" operators and types.
I do not bet on Python being much more than a glue language unless it gets strong compile-type type checking. That may be enough to make it a "dominant" language, because people ship more and more good libraries that can be simply picked up and used by higher-level code, but it will probably never displace other languages without stronger compile-time checks.
Right. So when you do typical high-level operations -- working with databases or network connections -- you often have to convert types, and the compiler has no way of telling you when you missed a required type conversion. You just get a runtime error, and then you need to trace back to find where the badly typed value started to be badly typed.
Particulate emissions and NO2 levels are largely local problems, especially when you look at health effects versus distance from source. You should want to clean up air in cities because there are lots of harmful emissions there, and because a lot of people live there. Especially in developing nations, along with China and India, it's wildly expensive to adopt the kind of environmental controls that the US and Europe use. I'm not sure that this gadget provides $25,000 worth of benefit, but I agree with the overall idea.
Isn't that obvious? You need to use really small volts to fit nine of them in a 9V battery. However, you can use much bigger volts in a AA cell because you only need to fit one and a half of them.
Legally, the crime of robbery has three elements: the robber takes money or goods from the victim, in the victim's presence, by force or intimidation. Picking up a lost $20 off the sidewalk lacks two of those elements.
Employment law in the US generally does not dictate severance pay exist at all, much less how it should be calculated. Do you think some specific law covers these executives?
American substance abuse counselors are not exactly unbiased on the issue. They have an explicit interest in making more people think they need professional help.
The high-school-level statistical explanation: Statistical studies are often described as "statistically significant" if their results could happen by chance less than 5% of the time. You can usually find such a study by luck if you try 14 times.
The ugly reality: You usually need many fewer than 14 tries, because of how exploratory analyses and controlling for related variables violate the assumptions underlying the probability calculations. Researchers never have enough information to really adjust for their statistical manipulations of the data. This study is particularly weak because it only used ~511 people (out of the 550 claimed in the summary, 23 had pre-existing anomalies in brain structure or missing data, and 16 had poor-quality brain scans, and they dropped some other people out for specific sub-analyses) and they broke these into lots of smaller groups to try to control for variables that could influence alcohol consumption and/or hippocampus shrinkage.
They claimed correlation, while admitting there were some notable uncontrolled confounders, exceptions to the implied rule, and limitations to their analysis.
Then they went on to say this justified the British government's recent move to reduce the alcohol consumption guidelines, which would only be a valid conclusion if they demonstrated cause and effect, so maybe they think they did demonstrate that.
The 1920s called, they wanted their busybody-temperance movement back.
The UK government is funding studies like these by the boatload. Who cares if 95% of them have negative results? 5% of them have findings that are statistically significant at the 5% level, so that's enough for the government to order people what to do (or not to do).
Be aware! Overconsumption of water can lead to death. Even moderate consumption, if sustained over time, can poison your brain and body. There's no right or wrong, but that is the choice being made here.
The most serious problem with Twitter is not who gets involved or who it highlights. It is Twitter's core approach to conversation. 140 characters do not provide enough room to make a real argument or explain anything in detail. Instead, posts devolve into cheap point-scoring and the use of slogans that signal one's tribal affiliation. This pushes people out of the "middle" and towards some outlier perspective -- maybe "pro" or "con" on the original question, or maybe "con" on the Internet or humanity in general.
Slashdot Mirror
"agents" should read "adherents". Gboard gets worse by the day.
Governments are pretty distinct from the agents of a given religion in that they can, and do, act in concert on a wide variety of subjects based on decisions from their senior leaders.
There is no head of Judaism, and lots of Catholics would tell the Pope to mind his own business if he said all good Catholics should tamper with votes. On the other hand, we've all seen news about despots and tyrants, and know how they coordinate the actions of their underlings.
No, I'm not saying that. Try reading what is actually written some day, you might find that you're not arguing actual straw men.
The C standard does not require that [u]int64_t, or any of the other exactly sized types, even exist. So there's one good reason to use int or long.
Sure. Why not? I would have a field day in court if they tried to stop me, and civil liberties organizations would be lining up to help.
Lots of police forces have tried to confiscate cell phones and destroy video recordings that they find inconvenient. That has uniformly been disapproved by courts.
Other religions believe that newer instructions -- for example, the New Testament -- or interpretations can supersede or limit previous scriptures. The Koran specifically forbids that. Try reading it one day.
Even if we are inclined to take the word of the representative of a government distinguished for its dishonest and corruption, that quote doesn't establish that Bush saw it as a war against people who followed the wrong religion. It strongly suggests a quote different motivation, in fact.
Not in the United States. US governments cannot compel most people to speak, or compel false speech. The only recognized limitation to date is that someone offering goods or services to the public may be compelled to disclose relevant information to prospective or actual customers.
Now, some people may choose to lie, perhaps on advice of lawyers, rather than fight a First Amendment battle in court. That doesn't mean the government (or any court order) compels them to lie. But a lot of people choose not to; that is the principle under which a warrant canary works.
If you don't know programming, don't try to pretend. Variables are typed if they are constrained to only contain values of a particular type. Values have a runtime type that may be narrower than their variable's type. C-family languages have typed variables. Python does not.
Stack traces do not tell you the life history of a value. It may have been wrong in a function called somewhere else entirely, then gone into a container that got sent to a different thread or process, maybe altered by some type-agnostic operation, and only caused a problem long after the root cause occurred. Congratulations on only working with toy code, such that the stack trace tells you everything you need to know.
It seldom is, because Python variables are untyped. You need to take back to figure out where the value (not the variable) came from, and why the value has the wrong type.
Most of my time is spent working on an app with C++ at the low levels, Python at the high levels, and Perl/JS for web stuff. I am one of two developers who primarily does C++, we have two who primarily do Python, and one who primarily does the web bits. The Python code unsurprisingly does a lot of database operations and IPC, so many of its endpoint types are strings. I am always shocked how many of the Python-domain commits are only to add or remove type conversions that testing missed. That problem is almost entirely absent in C++, with its strong static typing, and in Perl and JS, with their mostly "DWIM" operators and types.
I do not bet on Python being much more than a glue language unless it gets strong compile-type type checking. That may be enough to make it a "dominant" language, because people ship more and more good libraries that can be simply picked up and used by higher-level code, but it will probably never displace other languages without stronger compile-time checks.
Right. So when you do typical high-level operations -- working with databases or network connections -- you often have to convert types, and the compiler has no way of telling you when you missed a required type conversion. You just get a runtime error, and then you need to trace back to find where the badly typed value started to be badly typed.
Particulate emissions and NO2 levels are largely local problems, especially when you look at health effects versus distance from source. You should want to clean up air in cities because there are lots of harmful emissions there, and because a lot of people live there. Especially in developing nations, along with China and India, it's wildly expensive to adopt the kind of environmental controls that the US and Europe use. I'm not sure that this gadget provides $25,000 worth of benefit, but I agree with the overall idea.
The "script" command is awesome for that kind of thing, as it captures intra-program I/O as well as command lines.
Isn't that obvious? You need to use really small volts to fit nine of them in a 9V battery. However, you can use much bigger volts in a AA cell because you only need to fit one and a half of them.
Legally, the crime of robbery has three elements: the robber takes money or goods from the victim, in the victim's presence, by force or intimidation. Picking up a lost $20 off the sidewalk lacks two of those elements.
So who's not very good at this?
Employment law in the US generally does not dictate severance pay exist at all, much less how it should be calculated. Do you think some specific law covers these executives?
American substance abuse counselors are not exactly unbiased on the issue. They have an explicit interest in making more people think they need professional help.
The high-school-level statistical explanation: Statistical studies are often described as "statistically significant" if their results could happen by chance less than 5% of the time. You can usually find such a study by luck if you try 14 times.
The ugly reality: You usually need many fewer than 14 tries, because of how exploratory analyses and controlling for related variables violate the assumptions underlying the probability calculations. Researchers never have enough information to really adjust for their statistical manipulations of the data. This study is particularly weak because it only used ~511 people (out of the 550 claimed in the summary, 23 had pre-existing anomalies in brain structure or missing data, and 16 had poor-quality brain scans, and they dropped some other people out for specific sub-analyses) and they broke these into lots of smaller groups to try to control for variables that could influence alcohol consumption and/or hippocampus shrinkage.
They claimed correlation, while admitting there were some notable uncontrolled confounders, exceptions to the implied rule, and limitations to their analysis.
Then they went on to say this justified the British government's recent move to reduce the alcohol consumption guidelines, which would only be a valid conclusion if they demonstrated cause and effect, so maybe they think they did demonstrate that.
The 1920s called, they wanted their busybody-temperance movement back.
The UK government is funding studies like these by the boatload. Who cares if 95% of them have negative results? 5% of them have findings that are statistically significant at the 5% level, so that's enough for the government to order people what to do (or not to do).
Be aware! Overconsumption of water can lead to death. Even moderate consumption, if sustained over time, can poison your brain and body. There's no right or wrong, but that is the choice being made here.
I read that on the Internet, so it must be true.
That's pretty much my point. If you have to go outside the system to make a point effectively, it's a pretty awful system.
Lemme just make #deplorables invite-only, and kickban all of the splinter channel #BasketOfDeplorables.
The most serious problem with Twitter is not who gets involved or who it highlights. It is Twitter's core approach to conversation. 140 characters do not provide enough room to make a real argument or explain anything in detail. Instead, posts devolve into cheap point-scoring and the use of slogans that signal one's tribal affiliation. This pushes people out of the "middle" and towards some outlier perspective -- maybe "pro" or "con" on the original question, or maybe "con" on the Internet or humanity in general.