It's not lazy or uninspired. It's so someone skimming what you wrote to try to find the conclusion can quickly locate it. Yeah it may sound cliche, but it prioritizes function over form. Scientific papers formalize this by just giving the entire subsection a heading named "Conclusion."
A particular paragraph length is in no way a fundamental rule, instead it is a kind of canvas onto which someone skilled may paint a picture with words when they understand how to work them - forcing kids to write onto this space is like giving them a large canvas and oil paints when they have never even held a brush.
The point behind the 5-paragraph essay is not to force you to write things in 5 paragraphs. It's to force you to first think about what you want to say, so you will present it in a manner which is easier for a reader unfamiliar with the material to understand. It encourages you to start with an introduction, so the reader has proper context to understand what's coming up. That's followed by development to fully explain what you're trying to say. And it finishes with a conclusion which sums everything up, and stresses what action or change needs to be taken in response to what was just said.
If your message is intended for a single person or needs to be written as quickly as possible, then I can understand jettisoning punctuation, spelling, grammar, and 5-paragraph order organization. But if your intent is for your message to be read by multiple people or to try to get the reader to do something for you, then saving their time is more important than saving your time by being lazy. When you abbreviate, don't punctuate and spell-check properly, and don't first organize your thoughts in a 5-paragraph manner, you're being arrogant and condescending towards the reader. They will potentially waste more of their cumulative time trying to figure out what you were trying to say, than it would've taken for you to write it properly in the first place.
The entire point of communication is to try to relay as much information as possible in as little time as possible. Teaching kids to organize their thoughts to fit in a 5 paragraph essay encourages clear yet concise communication. Teaching them to write limericks does not.
I think it's rather telling that writers and scientists gravitated towards the same format for writing. An introduction at the beginning, a conclusion and discussion at the end, and 3 or more sections of development in the middle. It forces you to write in a manner which is easier for the reader to understand, skim, and review if they want to quickly find a section again to re-read. Yeah it takes more of your time, but the idea is that you give up a little of your time to save the readers a lot of their time.
Actually, I suspect the real reason behind this is because Google wants you to use (their) cloud storage, instead of local storage. So rather than simply preventing ChromeOS from running executables located on external media (have to copy it to the Chromebook first), they made so a screen lock will prevent you from doing anything with external storage, like, say playing a music playlist located on a USB flash drive. Oh well, at least they made it optional.
You talk like duplication of effort is a bad thing. Having just one constellation of positioning satellites leads to a single point of failure. I dunno what the "correct" number of positioning systems is, but it's not "one" like you seem to think.
Having different systems is also necessary for redundancy. The Japanese incorrectly thought having multiple backup generators at the Fukushima nuclear plant constituted redundancy. It does not. If your backups are identical, they're all vulnerable to a common failure mode. In Fukushima's case, a tsunami flooding the basement where all the generators were located. What they needed were multiple generators with different construction using different fuels located in different locations (the generators for the two newer reactors at Fukushima were located further up on a hill, and operated correctly when power went down).
So if it turns out that GPS is vulnerable to a y2k38 bug, chances are the other systems won't be affected because they were designed differently. We'll be able to switch off GPS for a few weeks to deal with the problem, relying on the other systems during the downtime, instead of everything relying on positioning satellites going to hell. Redundancy is good.
Believing you've been able to think of every possible scenario or failure mode so you can design a single best system is stupid. GSM would've crippled cellular data speeds because it was based on TDMA - each phone takes turns talking to the tower. That worked fine for low-bandwidth phone calls. But once phones began slurping high-bandwidth Internet data, it became a handicap. Fortunately the U.S. didn't go along with GSM, and allowed competition which came up with CDMA. In CDMA, all the phones talk to the tower simultaneously, and you rely on orthgonal codes to tell the signals apart. The phones see the transmissions of other phones as noise, so the total bandwidth automatically gets divided evenly between all phones which happen to be transmitting at any given moment. It was so superior to TDMA that in less than 2 years, GSM threw in the towel, and licensed CDMA as the official method for transmitting 3G data in GSM (HSPDA uses wideband CDMA). That's why GSM phones could talk and use data at the same time. It wasn't because GSM's design was superior, it was because GSM phones had a TDMA radio for voice, and a separate CDMA radio for data.
This is why you need to read your contracts carefully or have a lawyer go over them before you sign. It sounds like the original agreement didn't specify a timeframe for the money to be sent from Season Smart to Faraday Future. And Evergrade Health took advantage of that to push some of the payment into the future, then took steps to guarantee Faraday would die before those payments would become due. Meanwhile, Faraday probably naively handed over control of its assets and IP immediately, before receiving full payment (this is something even prostitutes know not to do).
Never underestimate the ability of investors to take more than they bargained for. When a venture capitalist firm agrees to invest money in your company, do not make the mistake of thinking of them as your savior. From that moment, they are and always will be locked into a power struggle with you for control of your company.
he bottom line is: Android should not allow any application to ask for any unnecessary permission,
That's been the case since Marshmallow (Android 6, released 3 years ago). You can selectively allow or deny apps individual permissions. The only permission you're not allowed to block is network access (which would turn ad-funded apps into free apps). Some apps break when you block a certain permission. But if a kids game refuses to run because you blocked access to the contact list, that's a pretty good sign you should just delete the app. (And "unnecessary" is subjective. To you a game needing network permission for ads is unnecessary. To the game maker, it's necessary because the ads are what put food on his table.)
Frankly, I don't know what more Android could do while still allowing app writers freedom, without starting to do annoying in-your-face elevation privilege popups like Windows Vista did every time you tried to run something. That's the choice you have to make here. It's not malignant apps running rampant vs them not running rampant - that's a narrow, biased interpretation of the trade-offs here.. It's malignant apps being possible vs. Big Brother having veto power over every developer in the world (Apple's model). You can strive for a balance of power between app authors and users (allowing some tricky authors to abuse some careless users), or you can give complete power to a regulatory agency.
I do find it amusing though that for decades I've been criticized and downmodded for arguing that a benevolent oligarchy can be superior to a democracy. Yet that's exactly what so many people are voting for when they choose Apple's model over Google's. Damn hypocrites. (I oppose Apple's model because they don't give you any option to escape their oversight. A benevolent oligarchy must retain the ability of the people to dump it if they wish, in case it ever stops being benevolent. Apple takes away that oh-so-important right from its users, probably for selfish reasons (so it can extort a 30% tax on all apps). Whereas with Google it's up to the user whether they want to restrict themselves to the Google Play Store, or use other stores.)
Stuff like this is why I think games as a stream have a future. Where your game's graphics are rendered by the server, then transmitted to you as a video stream (like a movie). The lag sucks, the graphics aren't as crisp (due to having been compressed), and you need a good (fast and stable) Internet connection. But cheaters are why we can't have good things.
The Kansas public education budget is $4.9 billion. It works out to almost exactly $10,000 per student, with about 39% of that going to instructor salary, 12% to instructor benefits.
With 41,243 teachers, that works out to an average (mean) salary of $46,300 plus $13,800 in benefits.
This compares to a statewide average (mean) income of $43,953. Searching through those labor stats for "education" confirms that the mean for most teaching jobs is right around the $45k mark.
If your claim that teachers have to work second or third jobs just to get by is true, that would mean more than half of Kansas citizens have to work second or third jobs just to get by.
My sister had my dad tested since although we're stereotypically Asian, our family's eyes are slightly rounder. She thought we might have a European ancestor somewhere in our genealogy. The test results came back 50% Hungarian, 40% Scandinavian. The biggest Asian component was 0.6% Japanese. Our best guess is the sample was contaminated, or they accidentally swapped with someone else's sample. But the company insisted they were accurate and that they never made mistakes.
I feel really sorry for people whose lives might be turned upside down by an erroneous test result, because they believe a company which is trying to preserve the marketability of their product by insisting they can't make mistakes. Given that 23andMe claims 5 million users, even a 99.99% accuracy rate means 500 customers were given erroneous results.
Amusingly, $2300 is less than the MSRP of $4498 in 1991, even if you don't adjust for inflation. (Accounting for inflation, it works out to $8400 in 2018 dollars.)
The fine isn't for putting satellites in orbit via India after permission from the U.S. was denied. And it's not for operating said satellites after their launch per se. Those factors probably contributed to the FCC being harsh with this company, but they're not the justification for the fine.
The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC, which this company apparently didn't obtain. According to TFA, they've now obtained that license, and are operating the satellites again.
To be fair, the first time this happened was the iPhone 4. A lot of people bought it thinking the 4 wasn't just the model number, but also signified it was 4G-capable. It was only 3G-capable.
"Dog food" = eating what you make. So if they're working on a censored search engine, just force the people making it (and the managers pushing the project) to use it themselves all the time. If they like it, they will work to make it more effective at censoring (i.e. filtering). If they dislike it, they will work to make it less effective at censoring (i.e. include more relevant search results). And the end product you get is one that's better for the users regardless of what the project's stated goals were.
You can't compare improvement as a percentage of success rate because the value of a % changes depending on what your success rate is. e.g. Increasing from 10% to 15% successes is not very impressive, while improving from 94% to 99% is very impressive, even though they're both a 5% improvement. To correctly compare, you have to invert and compare based on proportional decrease in failure rate.
Google
88% in 2018, or 12% failure rate
81% in 2017, or a 19% failure rate
12/19 = 0.63, or a 37% reduction in failures compared to last year
Siri
75% in 2018, or 25% failure rate
53% in 2017, or a 47% failure rate
25/47 = 0.53, or a 47% reduction in failures compared to last year
Alexa
72% in 2018, or 28% failure rate
63% in 2017, or a 37% failure rate
28/37 = 0.76, or a 24% reduction in failures compared to last year
Cortana
63% in 2018, or 37% failure rate
56% in 2017, or 44% failure rate
37/44 = 0.84, or a 16% reduction in failures compared to last year
The same problem crops up when comparing car MPG, which is actually the inverse of fuel efficiency so bigger MPG numbers actually represent smaller fuel savings. e.g. Switching from a 20 MPG vehicle to a 25 MPG vehicle saves 3.6x more fuel than switching from a 40 MPG vehicle to a 45 MPG vehicle despite both improvements being 5 MPG.
It also crops up in disk speed benchmarks, which are done in MB/s, when your perception of speed is the inverse (how many seconds you wait for an op to complete). So the "huge" improvement in sequential speeds from 500 MB/s for a SATA SSD to 3000 MB/s for a NVMe SSD actually matters a lot less than a "tiny" improvement in 4k read speeds from 30 MB/s to 50 MB/s.
I've paid my Apple premium price before because I specifically didn't want to deal with questionable quality in any aspect.
This isn't a QA thing. It's a consequence of prioritizing form over function. Apple has managed to convince users that their product design is superior even when it's inferior. For example, consider the widespread misbelief that a metal frame is better than plastic. Droves of misguided reviewers have probably convinced you that a metal chassis is better than a plastic chassis. In fact, it's the other way around. A plastic frame bounces back from impacts while a metal frame instantly deforms. Metal construction is superior if you're building something large enough that it can survive typical impacts without deformation. But for something as small and thin as a phone or tablet, you can't build a metal frame strong enough to withstand typical impacts. You're better off designing the device with plastic so it bends and bounces back from impacts.
Aluminum case warpage today, cheap SSD selection tomorrow.
The SSD thing has already happened (as a consequence of dropping Samsung as the supplier for the SSD). Scroll down to "Storage Devices". You'll see that the 2018 Macbook Pros have inferior sequential speeds and some of the worst 4k speeds of any SSD put in any laptop. Typical 4k speeds are 40-70 MB/s reads, 100-150 MB/s writes. The 15" 2018 MBP manages just 10 MB/s 4k reads, 20 MB/s writes.
It's just not widely known because the new version of OS X these devices ship with defaults to making links (like a shortcut) instead of actually copying data, which breaks most of the disk benchmarks used by reviewers. The copy isn't made until the link is edited to be different from the original. If you do a search, you'll find hundreds of reviewers who were taken in by this ruse and raving about how the SSD on the new MBPs are "the fastest they've ever measured." It's not because the SSD is fast, it's because a software change to cover up an inferior SSD broke their benchmarks.
Just to back this up, Facebook had a net income of $19.5 billion for the last 4 quarters. A $1 million donation is 0.005% of their net income. It's equivalent to someone making $100,000 a year donating $5. Hardly newsworthy.
"Earning" implies a proper economic transaction. When both sides agree to an economic exchange, it's because it benefits both parties. If you're a dairy cow farmer and your refrigerator is full of bottles of milk, so you crave eggs. Meanwhile your neighbor the chicken farmer has a refrigerator full of eggs he craves milk. So the two of you agree to exchange some milk for eggs. The value (to you) of items you possess (milk + eggs) has increased because you gave away some "worthless" milk to receive "valuable" eggs. The value (to him) of items your neighbor possesses (eggs + milk) has increased because he gave away some "worthless" eggs to receive "valuable" milk. So the net value of both your possessions has increased even though the total amount of eggs + milk in the system remains exactly the same.
That is what they mean when they say economics is not a zero-sum game. The value of the possessions of both sides in a valid economic transaction (a trade) increases, even if no new stuff is created. Both of you have "earned" something valuable from the trade. (This is also why capitalism beats out communism. In capitalism, each individual determines what things they value, and they make trades according to what they value. In communism, someone else determines the value of things for everyone, and distributes the things to the individuals. Communism works to a point, but beyond that point capitalism is better able to fine-tune trades to better match each individual's peculiar wants and needs.)
Stealing is nearly always zero or negative sum. One side loses exactly what the other side gains. Or one side loses more than the other side gains (usually if there was some property destruction in the process). What the people in TFA are doing is stealing, not earning. They're not creating anything of value, and in fact are destroying net value by forcing the victims to waste time going through an account retrieval process, and forcing Epic to expend additional resources to help with account retrieval.
(Why "nearly always"? You'll also notice that in cases like a spiteful rich guy purposefully refusing to sell life-saving medication, stealing the medicine actually becomes positive sum. The rich guy loses medicine which doesn't benefit him so its value is only what it cost him to acquire or create. But the medicine's value is a life to you, so is considerably more than what it cost the rich guy to acquire or create. So stealing the medicine actually results in a net positive economic transaction even though one side loses in the transaction. This sort of situation usually crops up when a person or company has a monopoly, and is the reason anti-trust regulation exists. It actually benefits society more to force the monopoly holder to sell at a price lower than they would like, or break up their monopoly so competition forces them to sell at a lower price. Government-created monopolies like copyright holders, Epi-pen manufacturers, and cable companies should take note here - the fact that their monopoly was granted by the government does not imply permission to abuse their monopoly in any manner their wish. The moment their antics cost society more than the value of what they're selling, the rationale for granting them a monopoly vanishes.)
The name "Debian" is a combination of the first names of Ian Murdock and his wife (Debra). By placing the woman's name before the man's, "Debian" is clearly misandristic (hatred of men, counterpart to misogynistic). The name should be replaced with something neutral which doesn't offend anyone.
It's a holdover from the way domain names were originally envisioned as being used. sony.com would be like a TLD for Sony, and they could add subdomains to it will. usa.sony.com, japan.sony.com, mobile.sony.com, playstation.sony.com, etc. Websites were supposed to be one of those subdomains, hence www.sony.com. The website is supposed to be on www.sony.com, and if you point a browser at sony.com it's supposed to auto-forward you to www.sony.com.
Alas it didn't work out that way, and for whatever reason people decided to just register playstation.com, sonymobile.com, etc. I never really understood this, since if you know Sony owns sony.com, then you automatically know that playstation.sony.com is a legit Sony site. If you see playstation.com or sonymobile.com, you can't be sure if it's really a Sony site, or a site set up by someone who just managed to register the domain before Sony. Same problem as with these new TLDs actually.
If the site has a dedicated web server, then yeah the IP address will work even if the domain name gets taken down and DNS redirected.
But most small websites are hosted on shared servers. Dozens or hundreds of websites are hosted on a single server and all have the same IP address. The site that gets loaded in your browser depends on the domain name you used to get to that IP address.
Any non-American posting anything on social media visible in the U.S. for/against any candidate in the 2020 Presidential election can now be told, "please delete your post or you could be accused of election meddling, and face sanctions prohibiting Americans from conducting any transactions with you in the future."
I agree with the principle that people who can't vote in an election shouldn't be allowed to influence it. But I simply don't think that's a goal that's realistically achievable without completly breaking other freedoms of social interaction.
"I'm sorry. The voice recognition happens inside the device, not on our servers. This wasn't possible 10 years ago, but computers have gotten faster and AI good enough to recognize what you're saying without the assistance of an off-site server. So we never get a copy of what you're saying. After your voice query is recognized, its text version is sent over the Internet if necessary, but we don't keep a record of those either."
Idiot reporters. Can't be bothered to try to understand a new technology, so they report on it using the only metric they already understand - speed. It's not about max speeds. That's kinda pointless as at 1.2 Gbps you'd blow through a 5 GB data cap in 30 seconds. Even at 140 Mbps you'd blow through 5 GB in less than 5 minutes.
5G isn't about improving your speed in the best case (though that can happen). It's about improving your speed in the worst case - when lots of people are trying to pull data from a tower simultaneously. The higher speed means each person's data download gets completed faster, meaning the tower is handling fewer simultaneous requests, meaning each individual request gets more bandwidth.
In addition, 5G adds MIMO. Rather than using one antenna to transmit and receive omnidirectionally, it uses multiple antennas and software to "aim" the antenna array like a phased array radar. Adding directionality means you can transmit to multiple devices over the same frequencies without the signals interfering because direction of the signal now matters, not just the presence of a signal. It's like communicating with point-to-point lasers instead of a sensor which just detects the total amount of light coming from all directions. Light signals being sent to other devices interfere with the latter, but not with the former.
What that boils down to is that 5G will minimize the impact of other people's use of the tower on the speeds you get. The max speed you experience may not be a substantial improvement over 4G. But the minimum speed you experience when the tower cell is crowded should be substantially better. You remember the iPhone demo which failed because there were too many WiFi users in the room? That's the kind of situation 5G solves.
It's not the slightest bit novel. It's the behavior of an underdamped second order system. Literally every engineering student learns it in their first or second year. We all know it. Newton and Leibniz figured it out when they invented Calculus and differential equations.
Unfortunately some dweeb patent examiner who probably slept through the lecture didn't know it, and granted the patent. I rate the patent about as bad as the stupid XOR patent. Both literally handed a company a patent on a fundamental mathematical concept which had been known for centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not lazy or uninspired. It's so someone skimming what you wrote to try to find the conclusion can quickly locate it. Yeah it may sound cliche, but it prioritizes function over form. Scientific papers formalize this by just giving the entire subsection a heading named "Conclusion."
The point behind the 5-paragraph essay is not to force you to write things in 5 paragraphs. It's to force you to first think about what you want to say, so you will present it in a manner which is easier for a reader unfamiliar with the material to understand. It encourages you to start with an introduction, so the reader has proper context to understand what's coming up. That's followed by development to fully explain what you're trying to say. And it finishes with a conclusion which sums everything up, and stresses what action or change needs to be taken in response to what was just said.
If your message is intended for a single person or needs to be written as quickly as possible, then I can understand jettisoning punctuation, spelling, grammar, and 5-paragraph order organization. But if your intent is for your message to be read by multiple people or to try to get the reader to do something for you, then saving their time is more important than saving your time by being lazy. When you abbreviate, don't punctuate and spell-check properly, and don't first organize your thoughts in a 5-paragraph manner, you're being arrogant and condescending towards the reader. They will potentially waste more of their cumulative time trying to figure out what you were trying to say, than it would've taken for you to write it properly in the first place.
The entire point of communication is to try to relay as much information as possible in as little time as possible. Teaching kids to organize their thoughts to fit in a 5 paragraph essay encourages clear yet concise communication. Teaching them to write limericks does not.
I think it's rather telling that writers and scientists gravitated towards the same format for writing. An introduction at the beginning, a conclusion and discussion at the end, and 3 or more sections of development in the middle. It forces you to write in a manner which is easier for the reader to understand, skim, and review if they want to quickly find a section again to re-read. Yeah it takes more of your time, but the idea is that you give up a little of your time to save the readers a lot of their time.
Actually, I suspect the real reason behind this is because Google wants you to use (their) cloud storage, instead of local storage. So rather than simply preventing ChromeOS from running executables located on external media (have to copy it to the Chromebook first), they made so a screen lock will prevent you from doing anything with external storage, like, say playing a music playlist located on a USB flash drive. Oh well, at least they made it optional.
You talk like duplication of effort is a bad thing. Having just one constellation of positioning satellites leads to a single point of failure. I dunno what the "correct" number of positioning systems is, but it's not "one" like you seem to think.
Having different systems is also necessary for redundancy. The Japanese incorrectly thought having multiple backup generators at the Fukushima nuclear plant constituted redundancy. It does not. If your backups are identical, they're all vulnerable to a common failure mode. In Fukushima's case, a tsunami flooding the basement where all the generators were located. What they needed were multiple generators with different construction using different fuels located in different locations (the generators for the two newer reactors at Fukushima were located further up on a hill, and operated correctly when power went down).
So if it turns out that GPS is vulnerable to a y2k38 bug, chances are the other systems won't be affected because they were designed differently. We'll be able to switch off GPS for a few weeks to deal with the problem, relying on the other systems during the downtime, instead of everything relying on positioning satellites going to hell. Redundancy is good.
Believing you've been able to think of every possible scenario or failure mode so you can design a single best system is stupid. GSM would've crippled cellular data speeds because it was based on TDMA - each phone takes turns talking to the tower. That worked fine for low-bandwidth phone calls. But once phones began slurping high-bandwidth Internet data, it became a handicap. Fortunately the U.S. didn't go along with GSM, and allowed competition which came up with CDMA. In CDMA, all the phones talk to the tower simultaneously, and you rely on orthgonal codes to tell the signals apart. The phones see the transmissions of other phones as noise, so the total bandwidth automatically gets divided evenly between all phones which happen to be transmitting at any given moment. It was so superior to TDMA that in less than 2 years, GSM threw in the towel, and licensed CDMA as the official method for transmitting 3G data in GSM (HSPDA uses wideband CDMA). That's why GSM phones could talk and use data at the same time. It wasn't because GSM's design was superior, it was because GSM phones had a TDMA radio for voice, and a separate CDMA radio for data.
This is why you need to read your contracts carefully or have a lawyer go over them before you sign. It sounds like the original agreement didn't specify a timeframe for the money to be sent from Season Smart to Faraday Future. And Evergrade Health took advantage of that to push some of the payment into the future, then took steps to guarantee Faraday would die before those payments would become due. Meanwhile, Faraday probably naively handed over control of its assets and IP immediately, before receiving full payment (this is something even prostitutes know not to do).
Never underestimate the ability of investors to take more than they bargained for. When a venture capitalist firm agrees to invest money in your company, do not make the mistake of thinking of them as your savior. From that moment, they are and always will be locked into a power struggle with you for control of your company.
That's been the case since Marshmallow (Android 6, released 3 years ago). You can selectively allow or deny apps individual permissions. The only permission you're not allowed to block is network access (which would turn ad-funded apps into free apps). Some apps break when you block a certain permission. But if a kids game refuses to run because you blocked access to the contact list, that's a pretty good sign you should just delete the app. (And "unnecessary" is subjective. To you a game needing network permission for ads is unnecessary. To the game maker, it's necessary because the ads are what put food on his table.)
Frankly, I don't know what more Android could do while still allowing app writers freedom, without starting to do annoying in-your-face elevation privilege popups like Windows Vista did every time you tried to run something. That's the choice you have to make here. It's not malignant apps running rampant vs them not running rampant - that's a narrow, biased interpretation of the trade-offs here.. It's malignant apps being possible vs. Big Brother having veto power over every developer in the world (Apple's model). You can strive for a balance of power between app authors and users (allowing some tricky authors to abuse some careless users), or you can give complete power to a regulatory agency.
I do find it amusing though that for decades I've been criticized and downmodded for arguing that a benevolent oligarchy can be superior to a democracy. Yet that's exactly what so many people are voting for when they choose Apple's model over Google's. Damn hypocrites. (I oppose Apple's model because they don't give you any option to escape their oversight. A benevolent oligarchy must retain the ability of the people to dump it if they wish, in case it ever stops being benevolent. Apple takes away that oh-so-important right from its users, probably for selfish reasons (so it can extort a 30% tax on all apps). Whereas with Google it's up to the user whether they want to restrict themselves to the Google Play Store, or use other stores.)
Stuff like this is why I think games as a stream have a future. Where your game's graphics are rendered by the server, then transmitted to you as a video stream (like a movie). The lag sucks, the graphics aren't as crisp (due to having been compressed), and you need a good (fast and stable) Internet connection. But cheaters are why we can't have good things.
The Kansas public education budget is $4.9 billion. It works out to almost exactly $10,000 per student, with about 39% of that going to instructor salary, 12% to instructor benefits.
With 41,243 teachers, that works out to an average (mean) salary of $46,300 plus $13,800 in benefits.
This compares to a statewide average (mean) income of $43,953. Searching through those labor stats for "education" confirms that the mean for most teaching jobs is right around the $45k mark.
If your claim that teachers have to work second or third jobs just to get by is true, that would mean more than half of Kansas citizens have to work second or third jobs just to get by.
My sister had my dad tested since although we're stereotypically Asian, our family's eyes are slightly rounder. She thought we might have a European ancestor somewhere in our genealogy. The test results came back 50% Hungarian, 40% Scandinavian. The biggest Asian component was 0.6% Japanese. Our best guess is the sample was contaminated, or they accidentally swapped with someone else's sample. But the company insisted they were accurate and that they never made mistakes.
I feel really sorry for people whose lives might be turned upside down by an erroneous test result, because they believe a company which is trying to preserve the marketability of their product by insisting they can't make mistakes. Given that 23andMe claims 5 million users, even a 99.99% accuracy rate means 500 customers were given erroneous results.
Amusingly, $2300 is less than the MSRP of $4498 in 1991, even if you don't adjust for inflation. (Accounting for inflation, it works out to $8400 in 2018 dollars.)
The fine isn't for putting satellites in orbit via India after permission from the U.S. was denied. And it's not for operating said satellites after their launch per se. Those factors probably contributed to the FCC being harsh with this company, but they're not the justification for the fine.
The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC, which this company apparently didn't obtain. According to TFA, they've now obtained that license, and are operating the satellites again.
To be fair, the first time this happened was the iPhone 4. A lot of people bought it thinking the 4 wasn't just the model number, but also signified it was 4G-capable. It was only 3G-capable.
"Dog food" = eating what you make. So if they're working on a censored search engine, just force the people making it (and the managers pushing the project) to use it themselves all the time. If they like it, they will work to make it more effective at censoring (i.e. filtering). If they dislike it, they will work to make it less effective at censoring (i.e. include more relevant search results). And the end product you get is one that's better for the users regardless of what the project's stated goals were.
You can't compare improvement as a percentage of success rate because the value of a % changes depending on what your success rate is. e.g. Increasing from 10% to 15% successes is not very impressive, while improving from 94% to 99% is very impressive, even though they're both a 5% improvement. To correctly compare, you have to invert and compare based on proportional decrease in failure rate.
Google
88% in 2018, or 12% failure rate
81% in 2017, or a 19% failure rate
12/19 = 0.63, or a 37% reduction in failures compared to last year
Siri
75% in 2018, or 25% failure rate
53% in 2017, or a 47% failure rate
25/47 = 0.53, or a 47% reduction in failures compared to last year
Alexa
72% in 2018, or 28% failure rate
63% in 2017, or a 37% failure rate
28/37 = 0.76, or a 24% reduction in failures compared to last year
Cortana
63% in 2018, or 37% failure rate
56% in 2017, or 44% failure rate
37/44 = 0.84, or a 16% reduction in failures compared to last year
The same problem crops up when comparing car MPG, which is actually the inverse of fuel efficiency so bigger MPG numbers actually represent smaller fuel savings. e.g. Switching from a 20 MPG vehicle to a 25 MPG vehicle saves 3.6x more fuel than switching from a 40 MPG vehicle to a 45 MPG vehicle despite both improvements being 5 MPG.
It also crops up in disk speed benchmarks, which are done in MB/s, when your perception of speed is the inverse (how many seconds you wait for an op to complete). So the "huge" improvement in sequential speeds from 500 MB/s for a SATA SSD to 3000 MB/s for a NVMe SSD actually matters a lot less than a "tiny" improvement in 4k read speeds from 30 MB/s to 50 MB/s.
This isn't a QA thing. It's a consequence of prioritizing form over function. Apple has managed to convince users that their product design is superior even when it's inferior. For example, consider the widespread misbelief that a metal frame is better than plastic. Droves of misguided reviewers have probably convinced you that a metal chassis is better than a plastic chassis. In fact, it's the other way around. A plastic frame bounces back from impacts while a metal frame instantly deforms. Metal construction is superior if you're building something large enough that it can survive typical impacts without deformation. But for something as small and thin as a phone or tablet, you can't build a metal frame strong enough to withstand typical impacts. You're better off designing the device with plastic so it bends and bounces back from impacts.
The SSD thing has already happened (as a consequence of dropping Samsung as the supplier for the SSD). Scroll down to "Storage Devices". You'll see that the 2018 Macbook Pros have inferior sequential speeds and some of the worst 4k speeds of any SSD put in any laptop. Typical 4k speeds are 40-70 MB/s reads, 100-150 MB/s writes. The 15" 2018 MBP manages just 10 MB/s 4k reads, 20 MB/s writes.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-15-2018-2-6-GHz-560X-Laptop-Review.317358.0.html
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-Pro-13-2018-Touch-Bar-i5-Laptop-Review.316648.0.html
It's just not widely known because the new version of OS X these devices ship with defaults to making links (like a shortcut) instead of actually copying data, which breaks most of the disk benchmarks used by reviewers. The copy isn't made until the link is edited to be different from the original. If you do a search, you'll find hundreds of reviewers who were taken in by this ruse and raving about how the SSD on the new MBPs are "the fastest they've ever measured." It's not because the SSD is fast, it's because a software change to cover up an inferior SSD broke their benchmarks.
And just like before, LG is going to get screwed over again by people thinking Apple invented it and competitors are copying Apple, when LG actually came out with it first.
Just to back this up, Facebook had a net income of $19.5 billion for the last 4 quarters. A $1 million donation is 0.005% of their net income. It's equivalent to someone making $100,000 a year donating $5. Hardly newsworthy.
"Earning" implies a proper economic transaction. When both sides agree to an economic exchange, it's because it benefits both parties. If you're a dairy cow farmer and your refrigerator is full of bottles of milk, so you crave eggs. Meanwhile your neighbor the chicken farmer has a refrigerator full of eggs he craves milk. So the two of you agree to exchange some milk for eggs. The value (to you) of items you possess (milk + eggs) has increased because you gave away some "worthless" milk to receive "valuable" eggs. The value (to him) of items your neighbor possesses (eggs + milk) has increased because he gave away some "worthless" eggs to receive "valuable" milk. So the net value of both your possessions has increased even though the total amount of eggs + milk in the system remains exactly the same.
That is what they mean when they say economics is not a zero-sum game. The value of the possessions of both sides in a valid economic transaction (a trade) increases, even if no new stuff is created. Both of you have "earned" something valuable from the trade. (This is also why capitalism beats out communism. In capitalism, each individual determines what things they value, and they make trades according to what they value. In communism, someone else determines the value of things for everyone, and distributes the things to the individuals. Communism works to a point, but beyond that point capitalism is better able to fine-tune trades to better match each individual's peculiar wants and needs.)
Stealing is nearly always zero or negative sum. One side loses exactly what the other side gains. Or one side loses more than the other side gains (usually if there was some property destruction in the process). What the people in TFA are doing is stealing, not earning. They're not creating anything of value, and in fact are destroying net value by forcing the victims to waste time going through an account retrieval process, and forcing Epic to expend additional resources to help with account retrieval.
(Why "nearly always"? You'll also notice that in cases like a spiteful rich guy purposefully refusing to sell life-saving medication, stealing the medicine actually becomes positive sum. The rich guy loses medicine which doesn't benefit him so its value is only what it cost him to acquire or create. But the medicine's value is a life to you, so is considerably more than what it cost the rich guy to acquire or create. So stealing the medicine actually results in a net positive economic transaction even though one side loses in the transaction. This sort of situation usually crops up when a person or company has a monopoly, and is the reason anti-trust regulation exists. It actually benefits society more to force the monopoly holder to sell at a price lower than they would like, or break up their monopoly so competition forces them to sell at a lower price. Government-created monopolies like copyright holders, Epi-pen manufacturers, and cable companies should take note here - the fact that their monopoly was granted by the government does not imply permission to abuse their monopoly in any manner their wish. The moment their antics cost society more than the value of what they're selling, the rationale for granting them a monopoly vanishes.)
The name "Debian" is a combination of the first names of Ian Murdock and his wife (Debra). By placing the woman's name before the man's, "Debian" is clearly misandristic (hatred of men, counterpart to misogynistic). The name should be replaced with something neutral which doesn't offend anyone.
It's a holdover from the way domain names were originally envisioned as being used. sony.com would be like a TLD for Sony, and they could add subdomains to it will. usa.sony.com, japan.sony.com, mobile.sony.com, playstation.sony.com, etc. Websites were supposed to be one of those subdomains, hence www.sony.com. The website is supposed to be on www.sony.com, and if you point a browser at sony.com it's supposed to auto-forward you to www.sony.com.
Alas it didn't work out that way, and for whatever reason people decided to just register playstation.com, sonymobile.com, etc. I never really understood this, since if you know Sony owns sony.com, then you automatically know that playstation.sony.com is a legit Sony site. If you see playstation.com or sonymobile.com, you can't be sure if it's really a Sony site, or a site set up by someone who just managed to register the domain before Sony. Same problem as with these new TLDs actually.
If the site has a dedicated web server, then yeah the IP address will work even if the domain name gets taken down and DNS redirected.
But most small websites are hosted on shared servers. Dozens or hundreds of websites are hosted on a single server and all have the same IP address. The site that gets loaded in your browser depends on the domain name you used to get to that IP address.
Any non-American posting anything on social media visible in the U.S. for/against any candidate in the 2020 Presidential election can now be told, "please delete your post or you could be accused of election meddling, and face sanctions prohibiting Americans from conducting any transactions with you in the future."
I agree with the principle that people who can't vote in an election shouldn't be allowed to influence it. But I simply don't think that's a goal that's realistically achievable without completly breaking other freedoms of social interaction.
"I'm sorry. The voice recognition happens inside the device, not on our servers. This wasn't possible 10 years ago, but computers have gotten faster and AI good enough to recognize what you're saying without the assistance of an off-site server. So we never get a copy of what you're saying. After your voice query is recognized, its text version is sent over the Internet if necessary, but we don't keep a record of those either."
Idiot reporters. Can't be bothered to try to understand a new technology, so they report on it using the only metric they already understand - speed. It's not about max speeds. That's kinda pointless as at 1.2 Gbps you'd blow through a 5 GB data cap in 30 seconds. Even at 140 Mbps you'd blow through 5 GB in less than 5 minutes.
5G isn't about improving your speed in the best case (though that can happen). It's about improving your speed in the worst case - when lots of people are trying to pull data from a tower simultaneously. The higher speed means each person's data download gets completed faster, meaning the tower is handling fewer simultaneous requests, meaning each individual request gets more bandwidth.
In addition, 5G adds MIMO. Rather than using one antenna to transmit and receive omnidirectionally, it uses multiple antennas and software to "aim" the antenna array like a phased array radar. Adding directionality means you can transmit to multiple devices over the same frequencies without the signals interfering because direction of the signal now matters, not just the presence of a signal. It's like communicating with point-to-point lasers instead of a sensor which just detects the total amount of light coming from all directions. Light signals being sent to other devices interfere with the latter, but not with the former.
What that boils down to is that 5G will minimize the impact of other people's use of the tower on the speeds you get. The max speed you experience may not be a substantial improvement over 4G. But the minimum speed you experience when the tower cell is crowded should be substantially better. You remember the iPhone demo which failed because there were too many WiFi users in the room? That's the kind of situation 5G solves.
It's not the slightest bit novel. It's the behavior of an underdamped second order system. Literally every engineering student learns it in their first or second year. We all know it. Newton and Leibniz figured it out when they invented Calculus and differential equations.
Unfortunately some dweeb patent examiner who probably slept through the lecture didn't know it, and granted the patent. I rate the patent about as bad as the stupid XOR patent. Both literally handed a company a patent on a fundamental mathematical concept which had been known for centuries.