So by this logic, everybody bidding on contracts on freelancer.com is now an employee of freelancer.com and entitled to minimum wage for the duration of their membership? This fundamentally fails the employment test of mutuality of obligation because an Uber driver is under no obligation to accept any available drive.

^^That's the first thing that came to mind

There are compliance regulations in many sectors, including finance (which includes insurance) and medical (which includes medical insurers) that say that everything has to be kept for a number of years. So on the whole in most of the civilised world, this sort of thing absolutely isn't going to fly.

^^^ This x1000! Mod parent up.

You clearly drank far too much koolaid about the capabilities of AI. The solution is simple and low-tech - introduce separate recycling bins for each type of recyclable waste (paper, plastic, metal), and make people take responsibility for their own shit - as unpalatable as it may seem to people suffering from delusions of entitlement. Add some bankrupting punitive fines for contaminating recycling for good measure, just to make sure.

"The world's greatest minds were too busy curing hair loss and prolonging erections." Who'd have thought...

The company is liable for corporation taxes in it's local tax jurisdiction, the person doing the work is liable for personal taxes, including national insurance, in the jurisdiction where they are tax resident.

... is going to sting on this one...

That's interesting, because when different brands share the same platform with a huge parts overlap under different part numbers, you can save a fortune by cross-checking what are identical parts. For example, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg, and to a large extent Audi Q7 are largely the same, apart from trim and some of the engine options. But you can pick up things like air suspension components for a Touareg for a lot less than the same part for a Cayenne, even though the only difference is the part number. This is far from being an only example, too.

You clearly either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said, specifically "the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width". Now, granted, you probably don't want 1:1 aspect ratio even if you only have one eye - human eye sees in an aspect ratio of approximately 5:3 (15:9).

16:10 was a much better aspect ratio than 16:9 for just about any workload - including movies. It's all about marketing - the less square the aspect ratio, the fewer pixels you get for the same width (e.g. 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, or 3840x2400 vs. 3840x2160) and diagonal size, the two main metrics by which screens are marketed. The manufacturer gets to sell you fewer pixels, resulting in better yields, and less surface area, resulting in lower cost to them, all while getting to charge you a higher price because the numbers look the same or better. This is in part why now, after a few years of manufacturers having shaped the market by making 16:9 the norm, we are now seeing an increase in ultra-wide screens which take this to the next level.

...

Because the incidence of brain cancer over 29 years (i.e. from before mobile phones existed until today) have not changed: https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

So basically: 1) Hoard 2) Move to a tax haven 3) Then cash out

Intel compiler suite knows both how to vectorize (for inner loops) and parallelize (for outer loops). What you are referring to here with OpenMP is parallelizing, which is great. But you will still get 4x+ (depending on the CPU) of performance overall if the inner loops are vectorized. If it means you can get the same performance with 4x less hardware, that can make a huge difference to the cost and viability of a project.