Alright Mr. Pedantic, let me fix that headline for you:

"Consumer Reports Says Tesla Model S Is Best Overall Land-based Self-moving Street-legal Consumer Vehicle"

A company that many thought would be bankrupt and closed by now has produced a brand-new electric car from scratch that Consumer Reports feels is the best car it's actually tested since 2007.

I have yet to meet anybody who thought Tesla "would be bankrupt and closed by now" who wasn't actively scheming toward that end. And yes, FUD counts as actively scheming.

Are you saying that boring cars that aren't EV / Hybrid / Autonomous are really that interested to the "news for nerds" crowd? For that matter, what about Ford F-150 story? That's definitely not EV / Hybrid / Autonomous, unless you count the little spies built into the vehicle. But go ahead. You were busy trying to downplay the newsworthiness of a vehicle which manages to impress everybody despite a sizable contingent devoted to grinding all EVs into dust.

Correction: Hybrid cars can be greener than electric ones. I'm sure you didn't mean to lump the hybrid SUVs in when you blanket claimed all hybrids were greener than all electrics. Especially since technically a golf cart should also count as an electric car (or at least could be retrofitted into one) and that would definitely be greener, if a bit less refined than a Tesla.

Except when the autocompleate function jumps out of the window and suggests similar named but different functions.

Using the wrong function is not a syntax error.

However, I never intended to defend IDEs. I personally hate them. But at least they don't tell you that your good grammar is wrong and tell you to replace it with something actually is wrong.

But hey, at least Word won't complain about your grammar until you've finished your sentence. Unlike an IDE that thinks you're never going to close that parenthesis you just opened.

I would argue that it's more like relying on Word's grammar checker. The suggested way may be technically correct...

I've got to take issue with you there. I've had Word suggest outright wrong grammar several times before. Things that would be clearly marked wrong by a grader. At least an IDE won't (usually) introduce blatant syntax errors.

Finally, someone who hates Obama enough to overcome the right-wing tendency towards more government surveillance. It's easy enough for a Democratic congress to go after a Republican president who abuses the rights of the American people, but apparently you have to call in the radicals to get a Republican congress to go after a Democratic president. I would have thought it wouldn't be that hard, though, with all the radicals around.

Amendments like the 1st and 4th and the 14th, which guarantee individual liberty, are categorically different from amendments like the 16th, which expand state power. Paul is entirely consistent in being in favor of individual liberty and against state power.

And apparently ambivalent towards the constitution as well.

I tried to post a comment on beta the other day. I wanted to be a coward, but there was no check box. So in trying to find a convenient way without logging out, I ended up back on the front page without the comment I already wrote, and the back button on the browser was even disabled. How the hell did that happen? Fuck beta.

$80 million may not be much money in comparison to a lot of other things, but we are in the middle of budget battles in Congress. How much would that $80 million be worth towards balancing the budget? Maybe saving government programs that do more proven and obvious good, like food stamps? How about using it directly on infrastructure repairs to both fix our massive number of failing bridges and inject a major stimulus into the bottom end of the economy, where it will do the most good? These are just my political suggestions; I don't feel confident to suggest without cynicism what that money could go to with different politics. But my point is that any money wasted from the federal budget is money that could been used much better in at least a dozen different ways.

The more I learn about charter schools, the more it seems that they obviously are not supposed to be a permanent solution. The institution itself is seems explicitly designed to produce a scattershot of ideas and methods, some of which might fail spectacularly, and some of which might succeed spectacularly. While it is troubling that we as a society are learning which ideas work at the expense of our children, that doesn't mean we should just throw away what we've learned. I'm not talking about whether or not to keep charter schools around. I'm talking about taking some of the more successful methods and implementing them in our public schools. It concerns me that every time I hear about how awful charter schools are supposed to be, the speaker acts as though the best solution would be to nuke them and pretend the whole experiment never happened.

With my 4-year CS degree I could tell you the basic idea, and I could recognize software that did it, but it would take a month for me to implement something myself. So here's my stab at the problem.

The crux of the issue is to reduce the software to specific operations for which you know how many gates are needed. To get a rough idea, I'd look at the compiled bytecode. There might then be an existing table of how many gates are needed to implement each operation in the resulting bytecode, or even more likely a number of transistors. But if not, that's where it would take a month of doing rough logical analysis to put together such a table. Then you add it up and get your result, which is kind of "it shouldn't take more than X many gates".

But then somebody has to actually transform the program into transistors so maybe you should just hire somebody that can do that. If you have the hardware design, it's trivial to tell someone how many transistors/gates are in it.

The disturbing part is not that the NSA might be able to listen to everyone's encryption someday. They are not an engineering organization and they will not be at the forefront of qubit manufacturing. The disturbing part is that they are wasting an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars on an impossible task aimed at ultimately destroying the ability to have security of any kind.

You're missing the target of her pronoun. The "this" in "basic cause of this" is not legitimate ADHD diagnoses. It's those being diagnosed who don't really have it. The whole point of TFA is that ADHD is over-diagnosed. 15% of children diagnosed for something an estimated 5% of them have? It's that extra 10% that are probably just fidgety 'cause recess and PE got cut so the district can cram more for the test.

As for the 5% who actually have the disorder, let's put it this way. I don't know what it's like, but I know some very smart people decided that it exists and has very real effects on a person's life. If medication fixes that, great! But we don't want to medicate the other 10% that don't actually have the disorder. It's apparently really hard to separate the over-diagnosis issue from ADHD being a real thing at all. And if only 1/3 of the people diagnosed really should have been, that mean 2/3 of every person I meet claiming to have ADHD really doesn't and doesn't know what it's like any better than I do.

But I'd guess that you really have it because you don't describe it the way everybody assumes "attention deficit" would work. It's not that you can't focus on any particular thing, it's that your mind just doesn't identify the same things to focus on as everyone else.

OP Paraphrased:

I want to buy fake product reviews for my awesome product. But everybody already knows the reviews are fake most places, so my fake reviews will be ignored. Can you please tell me what places remain that people won't know the reviews I plant are fake?