Many of the terms we use in computer technology comes from existing concepts. Just to name a few: application, file, virus, boot, handshake, cache, screen, menu, command, forum.
It doesn't matter that the words have a double meaning. It matters that they effectively communicate intent.
This is great for cities where it is still profitable to build competitive infrastructure. Some areas (like my neighborhood) are just far enough away that we barely get one company to provide any service at all, and there's no competition to drive the prices down.
There will be a mixed bag of solutions, and regulating different areas differently is necessary.
Similarly, verifying results of other research is another necessary part of the scientific process, but it too is boring and rarely happens.
And of course that is the case. The interesting hypothesis is that a paper contains mistakes or falsified results. But if it were properly peer reviewed, this would be unlikely and the result wouldn't be worth much in today's scientific atmosphere.
But a state's representation in Congress is often a mix of Democrats and Republicans. A state's representation in the Electoral College is generally single party.
So no, the EC does NOT operate the exact same way Congress does.
I'm talking about the business model for MoviePass. Obviously the theaters can make a killing on ticket sales and concessions. Which is why it seems dumb for MoviePass not to partner with theaters.
I don't see many movies in theaters either, but if I had this service then I'd damn well make sure I got my money's worth. Someone out there is going to literally see a movie every day of the year just to do it.
I don't see how the business model is sustainable without making deals with the theaters.
My child, which is why I'm holding her instead of throwing her in the crib every time she yawns.
But my life doesn't suspend just because I have a kid. That work email isn't more important than my napping daughter, but a one-handed keyboard no longer makes me choose.
Single-handed use is a big reason. Personally for me, it's a huge deal to be able to type with one hand while holding a sleeping baby in the other arm.
Curious if the employee has the flexibility to sign up for (or to reject) deliveries after each shift, and how much flexibility they have in time and direction.
When I am not going home after the shift, I shouldn't have to go out of my to deliver a package to my neighbor.
otherwise you are removing the incentive for that shift to take place
The incentive is to reduce costs for the owners of the businesses those robots serve. This simultaneously allows them to undercut competition that still relies on humans, while making more profit than before. Great!
Though in the end everyone will have robots. Profits would stabilize if it were only a small industry that is affected, but the concern is that this will spread across most industries. Big problem.. when most of the workers now have no money, then the profits cease across the board.
This is the Nash equilibrium, meaning it isn't easily solved in a spirit of competition. It requires either voluntary agreement or external force (such as government-based wealth redistribution) to counteract.
And there are alternative layouts like Pentile/RGBG. Though, either way it doesn't matter because it won't change existing display panels. This new tech would have new panels and presumably use square pixels.
Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the people who have something truthful to say.
Steer clear of articles that have the terms like "the left", "liberals", "alt-right", "neo-conservative", and any label that fits a large group of people. Such articles tend to take one or two people showing bad behavior and paints the entire group that way.
That isn't how the world really works, but it is how clickbait works.
As for "leaning on a video", there are hundreds of these videos to lean on where supporters and sometimes leaders of these groups start behaving less like well reasoned people and more like animals - often more racist and/or misandric than those they take aim at.
This might be, but there are millions of people who believe in each of those movements. Look past the examples, as there are plenty of such examples on both sides of the aisle. I'm sure you've seen videos of liberal activists becoming violent; there are plenty of videos of conservative activists being violent too. Ignore them, they don't speak for the larger groups.
As far as modern media is concerned, it has become acceptable for women to bash men without reason and for black people to spew racism against white people. It doesn't matter if you don't hate women and have never been racist - you had best start apologizing for their laundry list of issues because of your gender and skin color.
I get this. Only a few days ago I was in an argument with a feminist friend who seems to believe every little thing is white male privilege. But I have to remember that she does not speak for all liberals or even all feminists. And just because she argued her point poorly (typically she and her friends were simply dismissive of any evidence I provided and provided very little of their own), doesn't mean there isn't something real behind their hurt. So I seek better examples.
This is a good practice anyway, for any debate. You need to be able to argue the other side better than your opponent. You might just learn something in the process.
Want to know how to stop getting shot by police? Stop committing crimes.
This is missing the point. People have been killed by police for not committing crimes.
I usually side with the police. One of my good friends was a cop who won a supreme court case in Alabama that resulted in legal recognition that police should not be held responsible for harm that results by making split-second decisions. I always default to believing the cop when the evidence of malice is lacking.
That said, statistics show that there is a problem. There are circumstances in which cops tend to kill black men, but in those same circumstances they do not tend to kill white men. That doesn't prove that any one case is racist. But it does show a problem. Getting past the cries of racism to the meat of the problem is what we must do to progress as a society.
Start judging people as individuals instead of a borg hive mind
This is precisely my point. You want to be treated as an individual, not as a member of a bad group. So do they.
I do question that stuff, all the time. I also question the other side (presumably yours).
What I find is that most people are reasonable when describing what they like about their particular side of an issue. But they tend to be very unreasonable about describing the other side, often taking an extreme circumstance and painting the entire other side in that light.
Take BLM. Many supporters see bias in their everyday lives, and they fear the stories about police killing or hurting black people for no justified reason. They see judges ignore significant white crime but impose harsher sentences on blacks for lesser crimes (or as I read today, a case where the jury found no crime was committed but the judge sentenced the defendant anyway). Many who are against BLM lean on a video of rioters or they hear stories of lazy people who just want that government handout.
On the other side, supporters of police believe that the police keep society safe and that they put their lives on the line everyday to stop crime and to stop harm to other people. Those who are against police tend to just see the hot head jock who gets away with murder.
In both cases the supporters have a more coherent view than those who are against the cause. That is why we can't just look at one side for justice; it must be found through cooperation and level-headed analysis.
The smart man has an advantage over the dull man. This difference will create unequal outcomes. Correcting that advantage would mean giving the smart man a lobotomy, forcing the dull man to the smart mans position or excessively taxing the smart man to be equal to the dull man.
Regardless of your attempt at reductio ad absurdum, it's still a type of justice. Granted, you may not agree with that form of justice (neither do I).
It is very important to understand this: what appears to be justice for some, may appear to be injustice for others.
This is a big reason climate change science has so much pushback. Instead of being just science, it has aligned itself with a particular political leaning.
In the US, all politics are polarized and the other side will fight you even if the fight makes little sense.
It's not like that is even remotely unique to this industry.
I always fill up at the gas station, and I pay whatever the price comes to. The yogurt shop charges by weight after I pour and add toppings. My employer pays me for all the time I use to complete a task. This happens with or without an estimate; so long as the final charge is reasonable, people usually don't complain.
Because Silicon Valley offers perks that might make it worth living in poverty. Maybe it's the access to infrastructure, better job conditions, better health care, better career prospects, nicer weather, better beaches, etc.
I don't get all those things where I live (Alabama). I telework, so I could move to the bay area and nothing about my job would change. But my employer isn't going to provide a higher wage for the same work. No employer would, nor should they be forced to.
Everybody talks about cost-of-living. They never seem to talk about perks-of-living.
Slashdot Mirror
In VS Code, apparently, discard means "delete and purge all historical references --force"
Not according to the source.
It first displays the warning:
This will DELETE {0} untracked files!
When the user agrees, it performs git clean -f -q to discard untracked files. No committed history is lost.
Many of the terms we use in computer technology comes from existing concepts. Just to name a few: application, file, virus, boot, handshake, cache, screen, menu, command, forum.
It doesn't matter that the words have a double meaning. It matters that they effectively communicate intent.
This is great for cities where it is still profitable to build competitive infrastructure. Some areas (like my neighborhood) are just far enough away that we barely get one company to provide any service at all, and there's no competition to drive the prices down.
There will be a mixed bag of solutions, and regulating different areas differently is necessary.
Similarly, verifying results of other research is another necessary part of the scientific process, but it too is boring and rarely happens.
And of course that is the case. The interesting hypothesis is that a paper contains mistakes or falsified results. But if it were properly peer reviewed, this would be unlikely and the result wouldn't be worth much in today's scientific atmosphere.
But a state's representation in Congress is often a mix of Democrats and Republicans. A state's representation in the Electoral College is generally single party.
So no, the EC does NOT operate the exact same way Congress does.
I'm talking about the business model for MoviePass. Obviously the theaters can make a killing on ticket sales and concessions. Which is why it seems dumb for MoviePass not to partner with theaters.
Right, I would think arctic balloons at winter dusk would be a better test.
I don't see many movies in theaters either, but if I had this service then I'd damn well make sure I got my money's worth. Someone out there is going to literally see a movie every day of the year just to do it.
I don't see how the business model is sustainable without making deals with the theaters.
Why compare a math teacher to 5000 laptops? In one year, a math teacher costs roughly the same as 50 low-end Surface Laptops.
My child, which is why I'm holding her instead of throwing her in the crib every time she yawns.
But my life doesn't suspend just because I have a kid. That work email isn't more important than my napping daughter, but a one-handed keyboard no longer makes me choose.
Single-handed use is a big reason. Personally for me, it's a huge deal to be able to type with one hand while holding a sleeping baby in the other arm.
You don't have to loosen your definition of "janky" too much for basically all of C++ to fit.
Curious if the employee has the flexibility to sign up for (or to reject) deliveries after each shift, and how much flexibility they have in time and direction.
When I am not going home after the shift, I shouldn't have to go out of my to deliver a package to my neighbor.
otherwise you are removing the incentive for that shift to take place
The incentive is to reduce costs for the owners of the businesses those robots serve. This simultaneously allows them to undercut competition that still relies on humans, while making more profit than before. Great!
Though in the end everyone will have robots. Profits would stabilize if it were only a small industry that is affected, but the concern is that this will spread across most industries. Big problem.. when most of the workers now have no money, then the profits cease across the board.
This is the Nash equilibrium, meaning it isn't easily solved in a spirit of competition. It requires either voluntary agreement or external force (such as government-based wealth redistribution) to counteract.
And there are alternative layouts like Pentile/RGBG. Though, either way it doesn't matter because it won't change existing display panels. This new tech would have new panels and presumably use square pixels.
Perhaps you can point me in the direction of the people who have something truthful to say.
Steer clear of articles that have the terms like "the left", "liberals", "alt-right", "neo-conservative", and any label that fits a large group of people. Such articles tend to take one or two people showing bad behavior and paints the entire group that way.
That isn't how the world really works, but it is how clickbait works.
As for "leaning on a video", there are hundreds of these videos to lean on where supporters and sometimes leaders of these groups start behaving less like well reasoned people and more like animals - often more racist and/or misandric than those they take aim at.
This might be, but there are millions of people who believe in each of those movements. Look past the examples, as there are plenty of such examples on both sides of the aisle. I'm sure you've seen videos of liberal activists becoming violent; there are plenty of videos of conservative activists being violent too. Ignore them, they don't speak for the larger groups.
As far as modern media is concerned, it has become acceptable for women to bash men without reason and for black people to spew racism against white people. It doesn't matter if you don't hate women and have never been racist - you had best start apologizing for their laundry list of issues because of your gender and skin color.
I get this. Only a few days ago I was in an argument with a feminist friend who seems to believe every little thing is white male privilege. But I have to remember that she does not speak for all liberals or even all feminists. And just because she argued her point poorly (typically she and her friends were simply dismissive of any evidence I provided and provided very little of their own), doesn't mean there isn't something real behind their hurt. So I seek better examples.
This is a good practice anyway, for any debate. You need to be able to argue the other side better than your opponent. You might just learn something in the process.
Want to know how to stop getting shot by police? Stop committing crimes.
This is missing the point. People have been killed by police for not committing crimes.
I usually side with the police. One of my good friends was a cop who won a supreme court case in Alabama that resulted in legal recognition that police should not be held responsible for harm that results by making split-second decisions. I always default to believing the cop when the evidence of malice is lacking.
That said, statistics show that there is a problem. There are circumstances in which cops tend to kill black men, but in those same circumstances they do not tend to kill white men. That doesn't prove that any one case is racist. But it does show a problem. Getting past the cries of racism to the meat of the problem is what we must do to progress as a society.
Start judging people as individuals instead of a borg hive mind
This is precisely my point. You want to be treated as an individual, not as a member of a bad group. So do they.
I do question that stuff, all the time. I also question the other side (presumably yours).
What I find is that most people are reasonable when describing what they like about their particular side of an issue. But they tend to be very unreasonable about describing the other side, often taking an extreme circumstance and painting the entire other side in that light.
Take BLM. Many supporters see bias in their everyday lives, and they fear the stories about police killing or hurting black people for no justified reason. They see judges ignore significant white crime but impose harsher sentences on blacks for lesser crimes (or as I read today, a case where the jury found no crime was committed but the judge sentenced the defendant anyway). Many who are against BLM lean on a video of rioters or they hear stories of lazy people who just want that government handout.
On the other side, supporters of police believe that the police keep society safe and that they put their lives on the line everyday to stop crime and to stop harm to other people. Those who are against police tend to just see the hot head jock who gets away with murder.
In both cases the supporters have a more coherent view than those who are against the cause. That is why we can't just look at one side for justice; it must be found through cooperation and level-headed analysis.
In this case, nobody has been wronged.
That is an opinion. Therefore, the term "justice" is necessarily opinionated.
The smart man has an advantage over the dull man. This difference will create unequal outcomes. Correcting that advantage would mean giving the smart man a lobotomy, forcing the dull man to the smart mans position or excessively taxing the smart man to be equal to the dull man.
Regardless of your attempt at reductio ad absurdum, it's still a type of justice. Granted, you may not agree with that form of justice (neither do I).
It is very important to understand this: what appears to be justice for some, may appear to be injustice for others.
Advantage creates inequality. Fairness implies equality. So correcting an advantage achieves fairness.
You are just saying the same thing.
The problem is that social justice isn't justice. It's presently a weapon for deposing some while elevating others.
That is how justice works. When criminals take an advantage over their victims, criminal justice seeks to correct that advantage.
All justice seeks to correct an advantage.
This is a big reason climate change science has so much pushback. Instead of being just science, it has aligned itself with a particular political leaning.
In the US, all politics are polarized and the other side will fight you even if the fight makes little sense.
It's not like that is even remotely unique to this industry.
I always fill up at the gas station, and I pay whatever the price comes to. The yogurt shop charges by weight after I pour and add toppings. My employer pays me for all the time I use to complete a task. This happens with or without an estimate; so long as the final charge is reasonable, people usually don't complain.
I'm not moving anywhere unless I have a job to go to.
Right, this is what I meant by the perk of "better career prospects".
Just because I have no desire to own two Tesla cars at the same time doesn't mean I'm living in poverty.
Of course not. The talk about poverty was in response to the previous post, in no way asserting that everyone who lives in Silicon Valley is poor.
Then why not move to that rural area?
Because Silicon Valley offers perks that might make it worth living in poverty. Maybe it's the access to infrastructure, better job conditions, better health care, better career prospects, nicer weather, better beaches, etc.
I don't get all those things where I live (Alabama). I telework, so I could move to the bay area and nothing about my job would change. But my employer isn't going to provide a higher wage for the same work. No employer would, nor should they be forced to.
Everybody talks about cost-of-living. They never seem to talk about perks-of-living.