When I search, I don't mind ads. I mind malevolant ads. But I mind malevolant sites more. One is solveable. Generically the site that has the most to gain through advertising pays the most. And I generally benefit from those. But SEO is more insidious. They are trying to gain my attention from generally more appropriate sites by gaming the system. If the system is evolving correctly the best most appropriate sites get selected automatically. The major search sites recognize these things. Because if they stop providing relevant sites other sites will come along and become more relevant. I am not going to use your site if there are no ads. No ads means less relevant searches for me. The site with the most relevant search wins. Hands down. Everything else is meaningless.
There are three main programs that beat grandmasters on rather modest computers. Stockfish (an open source project), Komodo (A private original product that largely uses more correct algorithms and internal scoring), and Houdini (a project built by largely extending Rybka). There was a large increase in strength a few years back over the standard programs that had to do with much improved "search" and better pruning. Rybka took those ideas along with improved board scoring and led the field with an entire class difference in strength (about 300 elo increase). The programs since have raised that by about another 150 or so points. It may be that we have reached near apex with these techniques. And it may be hard to get more "strength" but there are surely points to be discovered. I suspect it may be in exception handling. There is a big resistance to to that, the argument being that exceptions just mean you have yet to understand enough. I'm not entirely convinced. There is also a movement to be exploitive. Magnus Carlsen is the top player in the world, and he uses exploitive technique a lot. He seeks positions unmemorized to allow rawer talent to shine and is really successful with that technique. And many of the top players do this more and more. There is little of this in computer play.
It's called wiring money.
When you hire tons of people especially quickly, you're going to have a lower mean of high quality people. Churn can be as stated, but also a common part of the industry, is to find a way of increasing the quality of your employees. Fire the worst, replace them with better. Rinse and repeat. Sometimes its about a body, any body, to move the ball forward. Then it's about getting better and better people. It's not just about training, it is still largely a talent based industry, where the majority of the progress is made by a minority of the people.
Solved by Google News, Trending Topics, Aware friends and followers, Flip Book, A collection of mainstream newsies for breaking news sites, mac rumors. Slashdot is about 24 hours behind many of the news stories that end up here. But you're just being lazy if you feel you need to goad others into providing you yet another news feed.
The Ice melts and the water physically goes elsewhere. Less stuff, less gravity.
At the club in Mcmurdo Station....
Hopefully this will change Nadella's mind. QA is part of the process, and has to be independent of engineering...
If we are in a simulation, we are also subject to the "Clock" inside the simulation. It doesn't matter how fast or how slow the system is that is running it, so long as we cannot escape the clock we live with. This allows a complicated simulation to exist, even on crappy original hardware, because we run at sim-speed.
It would seem to be pretty easy to prove, and cost Uber money... The point under test is Tortious interference...
"i am groot"
You can coordinate with third parties to create multi-level documentation. This has been done by many well used programs. It improves THEIR ability to provide documentation, creates synergy with others, and lets you focus on development. Spend your time documenting getting to the point of needing further documentation, let others provide it.
If you can't find others to do this, you may be finding that your whole thing may be a waste of time.
"Money's" history has largely been one of property. It was gold, it was silver, it was in general immutable, you could warp it, stamp it, it was inherently worth whatever it was. The mark of the coin, provided sovereign trust that the "money" was the quantity and purity that you would expect.
This moved largely to a representation of something of value. Which would work so long as the banker or sovereign would create the right quantity of representation. This resulted in bubbles and bank runs when it wasn't done right. But it was essentiality tied to this immutable stuff. A gold standard. This has historically always failed...
Today money is the creation of debt. The commodity becomes the work that is created in society, and that debt is paid in money. Which then is used to create economy. This separates money from property, and it becomes more responsible for simply economy, the swirl of debt. The big key is that bankers and politicians are kept separate. The bankers attempt to keep it right as that is where the long term value is for them, and if they get it wrong, if it falls apart, the bankers have essentially nothing, and nothing is happening. The politicians through the power of central power get to impose a very special attribute to money. It can, and has to be accepted, for all debts public and private. This is a very important distinction that separates modern money from property based money. The value store in property based money is intrinsic. The value store in modern money becomes a balance of supply to work or debt. One of the big problems of this is when pooling becomes supra-economic and becomes a source of political power. This was severely limited before, it was extremely difficult for an individual to become this rich. It is much easier in this system. As it happens the economically powerful persuade for themselves to pool more of the wealth so that they have more power. Interestingly enough, this helps prevent inflation, and maybe actually keep the economy running, but it skews political power. This was supposed to be solved by confiscatory means of the government which then simply destroys the money as a fulfillment of self debt. But, this is precisely what the eco-political class works to overcome.
Bitcoin, is more akin to commodity. It has no special governmental blessing, protection, or edict. It can't be forced to be used for paying of debt. However, the value of it isn't intrinsic, for it isn't a thing. It is attributes of a thing. It is a tulip bulb. This allows for specialized movement and tracking, but it really isn't money. However, if wealth is created in the process, then it looks like money for a wealth tracking agency of a government, and it looks like wealth when converted back into money, no matter how many steps. If the process of conversion from money, into assets or economy, and then back into money for the purpose of obscuring the source and path of the original money, THAT is money laundering. And if the scheme tends to have that as an inherent purpose, the scheme itself can be declared illegal. This has happened a lot with insurance, banking, strip clubs, car washes. You see a ton of it sensationalized in the Sopranos. A very important place where this has been enforced, but received a lot of different views, though clear in the charging and investigation papers, was online poker. The money laundering claim doesn't require bit coin to be money. And if the entire scheme seems to be largely leverageable for laundering, and little other purpose it can be shut down for that reason. If the scheme is largely used to defraud regular unsuspecting public in can be shut down, not just for theft, but the scheme itself. Barry Madoff, Fulltilt, AB/UB are current examples. Bitcoin and crypto currency of sorts may very well find that same fate.
In other words, I want content for free. I bet you run ad block too...
Does the extreme distances of very far galaxies red shift and rapid expansion, better explained by vacuum polarization and a slow down of light over extreme distances? So that what we are not seeing is some sort of doppler shift, but instead of something akin to friction over very long distances using this process that both delays the light, and shifts the frequency to red? And if so, does this change the expansion of the universe answer?