What we can do, though, is talk about the probability distribution.

The people who used to invest in cryptocurrencies are now looking for the next next-big-thing. Some long shot that will let them salivate over imagined mega-successes. There's a chance that quantum computing could be that pipe dream.

If you go straight east. Which you don't, because then you would describe it as off the coast of Zhangzhou, not off the coast of Chaozhou.

No, you did the right thing. It's the vapours that are dangerous. A cigarette tossed into liquid gasoline will be extinguished for lack of oxygen. The gasoline will be heated up a little bit but not enough to light it. Holding a cigarette for an extended amount of time in an environment of gasoline vapours mixed with atmospheric air, now that's another matter.

Even if the first 2000 cigarettes do nothing, it only takes one ignition in the course of a lifetime to ruin someone's life.

Global warming has been going on for a lot more than 60 years. We already have the data.

It is certainly true that there is no evidence that I can present that you cannot arbitrarily deny.

The global average temperature over a 30 year period being the same or lower than the global average temperature over the 30 years that immediately preceded it.

It's as falsifiable as it gets.

Simpler than that: Enumerate the legal moves in the position according to a consistent, agreed-upon algorithm, and transmit the number of the move. Most positions will have no more than 64 legal moves, many positions will have no more than 32. So 5-6 bits is indeed enough.

The only flaw is that you can't transmit an illegal move. Positions exist where the best move is to castle and hope that the opponent has forgotten that you've already moved your king and castling is illegal...

I'm not a gamer these days, so I may be way off the mark, but: If the game companies would just hold actual swiss system tournaments, instead of treating the entire online experience of the game as one big never-ending swiss tournament, then this problem would go away.

Armin Rigo directed his energy towards PyPy instead.

That, my friend, is a testable theory. The test is the positivity rate. If your hypothesis is correct, then the positivity rate would be falling. They're not, they're going through the roof. Those numbers are not exactly hard to find. You couldn't have taken 3 minutes to look up the data before posting a dead wrong hypothesis??

Buenas noches, señor. What's the weather like in Spain? Back in the US, the 7-day moving average of daily deaths is currently 1153.

With black on white text, the difference in light output between a page full of text and a blank page is 5-10%. With white on black text, that difference is 100%. That means increased eye strain, especially as you get older and your eyes become slower to adapt. And possibly ghosting effects.

On a tiny phone screen dark mode is fine, because the ambient light around the phone makes up most of the light that meets your eye, and your pupils don't need to change a lot. On a large desktop monitor on the other hand, dark mode is a disaster, your pupils are working overtime.

If you like dark mode even on large screens, then hurray for you, you have great eyes. At least for now.

That's my theory. It's testable: If I'm right, then the older you get, the less likely you are to prefer dark mode.

Something tells me this is really about powershell being used as the implementation language for the attack payload. Not about vulnerabilities in powershell itself or in programs written in powershell.

Which means powershell is not the source of any threats.

It's just a matter of zoom level. Do a deep enough digital zoom, and you can always find a grainy image to misinterpret, no matter how good your camera is.

If the footage was clearer then you would be able to see what the object (or visual artifact) is, and then it would no longer be a UFO. It follows that UFO imagery must be exactly this grainy. Always has been, always will be. As camera resolution increases, feature size will automatically become smaller to compensate.

Some people obsess about money. Present them with a potential windfall, and they get all glassy-eyed and twitchy at the thought of all the money they're going to make.

Sometimes it works for them. If you are preoccupied with making as much money as possible, some of the things you try are going to succeed. Other things blow up in your face, like this one.

Clearly you are convinced that you already know the answer, and that everyone should infer the same answer as you. That's what rhetorical means.