The limitation is servers placed in between users and the content they want, by marketing company servers that demand to be parsed before loading.

Generally, this isn't true. Most marketing scripts are loaded asynchronously and will load in the background while your main content loads.

Additionally, if you're a major website, you can demand network performance improvements from the marketing vendors before you'll put their pixel on your site.

From my experience, cpu time processing javascript, loading large javascript libraries, and recalculating the dom is the biggest bottleneck. Those marketing scripts you mention? Most of them come with a jQuery library several versions old. If you load more than one or two on your site, you're loading multiple versions of jQuery (which is a huge library compared to what the scripts actually do). On top of that, they're usually inserting elements into the dom, such as 1x1 gifs or other scripts. This forces the browser to recalculate what the page is supposed to look like, which takes even more load time.

Check out Chrome's built in performance monitoring tool. It'll show you what the site is trying to load and how long it's taking to parse javascript, css, etc.

Ultimately, you're correct that it's the marketing scripts that are likely causing the issue, but it's not the issue that you think it is.

A CEO or other top executive dumping stock ahead of a major announcement is called insider trading and illegal.

I don't know whether I should trust this comment or not because it only has a score of +1 with no moderation history at the time of my post.

Help me decide how to think about this comment, Slashdot!

You're mistaking the goal here. The goal isn't to produce energy. Although you could use renewable forms of energy to produce the carbon neutral fuel, it would be far more efficient to just use the renewable energy directly.

The goal is to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere with the side benefit that you can put the carbon into something usable to offset the cost of doing so.

What's new in this article is that the cost of doing that is a lot lower than originally expected, and with current markets, even profitable.

The Model 3 goes 310-335 miles on a single charge. Even the Consumer Reports article points out that they were able to go 350 miles with the aggressive regenerative breaking turned on, and 310 miles with the lower regenerative breaking setting.

In other words, to be comparative with the Model 3, the Ioniq would have to double their range (and then some) because the Model 3 has a far greater range.

AI in video games is very different from the AI that these chips would be using. The AI in video games sucks for three reasons:

1. If the AI were too good, players would quit because it is too hard. Certain games specifically are designed to be extremely hard, but this isn't the norm. In a first person shooter, this would be the equivalent of fighting against an aimbot. (Aimbots are a great example of AI - they're designed to be perfect or to use information that the player doesn't normally have.) It becomes a game balance and design decision to make the AI imperfect.

2. Complex AI can be very computationally intensive. There's a tradeoff in the speed of calculations between "good enough" and "perfect" in some algorithms. When you're dealing with a lot of variables in a complex game that a good AI might use, it takes a lot of processor cycles to calculate how to respond to you to make it more difficult for you. Take for example Civilization that takes far longer between turns at the end of the scenario than it does at the beginning of the scenario because there are more variables to consider.

3. Given 1 and 2, the easiest method to implement a balanced AI is to cheat - give the computer advantages that the players don't have or to hardcode certain behaviors. Those behaviors can be easy for humans to learn and beat, even when the computer is cheating.

The processors in this article are talking about new chips that are designed to calculate the math for a certain type of complex calculation by making assumptions about the type of calculation being done and taking some shortcuts with the drawback that they can't perform other calculations as fast.

Motor companies have always had electric concept cars (I would argue that hybrids are rest of the motor industry's innovation, nothing to do with Tesla - a middle ground more acceptable to the consumer which sell much better. Hybrids represent 3% of the market, electrics so much less than 1% that it's too hard to account for). Just nobody was ever really willing to buy them, so why would you bring them to market - the R&D was done, yes, but to ramp up to production is expensive and they'd never have been profitable, as Tesla are finding out now (have they ever made a penny in profit?). The same problem happened with the Tesla, really, except they sell on their "designer" status only, and not very well at all.

Except the electric cars that have been produced by the big automakers look like shit and then they're shocked when they don't sell well. Tesla was the first company to make a sleek electric car that looked like a luxury sedan.

I want an electric car, but I don't want to drive a roller skate. I don't want a car that looks like it'll crumple like a tin can in a wreck. I don't want a car that looks like an electric car. If "designer" status means that I get a luxury sedan that looks like a luxury sedan, I'll buy all day long.

Porpoises are a group of fully aquatic marine mammals that are sometimes referred to as mereswine, all of which are classified under the family Phocoenidae, parvorder Odontoceti.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porpoise

It's close to pedantic in the dictionary.

Or even like in this case where there's a genetic cause and a gut flora cause. It takes both scenarios in combination to cause the disease, which is why it's hard to reproduce an exact cause.

I can understand if a company is having a difficult time filling a position being open to a bit more flexibility when hiring, but this kind of pandering and coddling to the social-media texting generation is rather pathetic. You want the job bad enough? Then make an effort to get off your ass and go meet the human hiring you in fucking person.

Actually, being able to video conference in with the hiring manager is a boon when the hiring manager is at the other end of the state or across the country. It isn't 'pandering' or 'coddling'. It's a flat out necessity when you're unable to find the ideal candidate locally and flying potential candidates in is really expensive.

I've found that it's fairly common for recruiters to recruit ideal candidates from around the country, even for jobs that aren't telecommute positions.