Comment How do Uber/Lyft prevent psychopaths? (Score 1) 329
Genuinely asking: Not having tried either of these services, how did they solve the problem of vetting the drivers so the public is safe?
Genuinely asking: Not having tried either of these services, how did they solve the problem of vetting the drivers so the public is safe?
One of my favorites is, often employed by CNN, is to disrespect the dead by turning them into clickbait if they aren't 'famous enough'.
They will post links like "60s rocker dies" or "NFL legend passes" but only if the celeb is middling famous. Like Michael Jackson or Joan Rivers will get their actual name in the link, but if you're not up to their arbitrary threshold you'll just be "Actor from James Bond movies dies".
You can mouse over the link to see who without giving them the click, as they always leave the real name in the URL
Linking to Ken Sabet basically discredits you in any Marijuana related discussion. Things are fine here, please fuck off and stop pointing fingers at my state.
Isn't the proper solution to then criminalize the 'acting' and violence? This way there would be no risk of Ms. Maroney being prosecuted here.
Oh don't worry, people Wikipedia articles on Slashdot almost never produce links to anecdotes like these. If you ask them directly they huff and puff about wasted time, but god forbid we peer over their shoulder to analyze their perceived grievance...
If you want to break established definitions, sure.
In other news:
-Foodies vastly prefer McDonalds
-90% of film buffs are men (porn), get those films some Oscars!
-The hottest song in the world is the Windows startup chime, or maybe the default Marimba iPhone ringtone
I don't buy it, with driverless shuttles/cabs all over the place there would be tons of people fucking/doing drugs/pissing/vandalizing in these (expensive) things.
You'll damn well need a user account and probably have 24/7 cameras on you if these things ever get off the ground.
Of course.
Vegas will do something like this.
Florida -4 -110
Louisville +4 -110
What this means is if you want to bet on either Louisville +4 OR Florida -4, you have to risk $1.10 for each dollar you'd win.
So their goal is to get something like (for example) $11000 bet on each side, guaranteeing them a $1000 profit no matter what happens.
It's just like the internet, you stop a fight with trolls by ignoring them.
I figured you were trolling but holy crap, that really might be the worst written Wikipedia article ever. It reads like a 5th grade book report thrown together at the last minute.
It's not evil or immoral software, it's just kind of shoddy, crashy stuff put out by an overworked and understaffed team. I'll happily take a paycheck while I bust ass trying to improve it, but I'm not going to give it 5 stars on Amazon because it doesn't deserve them. I'm pretty sure even if it was amazing, that it would be a conflict of interest to review it.
I was asked to do it by one of my employers, but refused on ethical grounds. So the idea exists in marketing departments, I'll tell you that much.
Why would this make us more obese, this won't make more fat food then we already have, just a new way of doing it. It will just put a few low paid cooks out of a job and leaves one job for some guy that fixes the machine.
Oh sure it will, there is almost certainly some percentage of fatties that are partially kept in check by the shame of ordering multiple day's worth of food from a skinny teenager. Once you're ordering from an nonjudging robot it will be much socially easier to ask for 3 burgers and 2 orders of fries.
It will be like the guys that would never set foot in a physical porn shop, but have no problem purchasing it online.
My issue is that the exceptions to the excluded words are arbitrary. If you choose a particular spelling (especially different romanizations of Chinese words) of a particular foreign word, there's no saying whether or not it will be in the Scrabble dictionary. Some abbreviations are in the Scrabble dictionary, but not all of them. And so on...
My point is that this is a problem with dictionaries in general, not simply the Scrabble dictionary. The Scrabble dictionary doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's compiled from real world source dictionaries. Those dictionaries (which are largely descriptive) have lexicographers and other academics who decide which romanizations to include based on what exists in actual usage. I mean SOOSHEE is a romanization of the Japanese "sushi", but its not in English dictionaries because no one uses it. But people do use both QAT and KHAT when referring to North African drug usage.
It's the arbitrary nature of the special "allowed" exceptions that I dislike about the Scrabble dictionary. The Scrabble dictionary introduces the "lawyer games" by making the rules arcane instead of simple and straightforward.
I don't see how it invites lawyering at all. It's a concrete list of allowed words. Either a word is in there or it's not. I'd venture that played to the rules in the box, and with an official Scrabble dictionary, it's one of the least amibigious/rules lawyery board games on the market.
I guess I don't see how you think anything is made simple and straightforward by using a "real" dictionary as you originally posted. Either that dictionary will be so comprehensive that it will frustrate you with lots of romanizations, or it will be so abridged that you'll be frustrated when you play some word that is very common in your field of study but perhaps rare in general discourse, and you find it's not valid because it was left out to keep the page count down.
Duplicate kind of stinks if you enjoy the competitive and tactical aspects of Scrabble. It's a neat word learning/anagramming game though.
BLISS is ignorance.
