It is very funny that Qualcomm was bragging about Linux support for their new (at the time) Snapdragon X, just before it was actually launched (with multiple Windows devices, all small/light portables) https://www.qualcomm.com/devel... . And then ever since that ... crickets.

Meanwhile they also dropped (as in killed) their own devkit (which could have been thought as a more "regular" form factor device with these SoCs), but SO hard that clearly they were very rushed so the door doesn't hit them on their way out. They basically refunded/not charged all the ones that were sold/on the way, just don't bother us for any support with these! And at $900 for a very beta device, kind of equivalent but much more expensive than a Mac Mini they should've been happy to continue selling them. But apparently not, so their SoCs of this type are dedicated to this super-niche Windows ARM platform (which frankly is some fragmentation the universe didn't need but whatever), and kind of work with Linux, but much isn't still properly supported.

Trump received more black votes than any Republican in history.

As blacks move up, they move right. Same for Hispanics.

Democrats need a positive agenda that addresses the concerns of working-class voters. They aren't gonna win by playing the race card.

Right, but as I just said obeying a disallow directive isn't legally mandatory, so it doesn't mean much.

Yep. Imagine signing up to pay someone a subscription fee that you can get a night's sleep.

A reference to selling useless products to people.

Looking for health patterns that drug makers could use to target you for a sales pitch.

The difference depends on context, of course.

Generally speaking there are several cases to consider:

(1) Site requires agreeing on terms of service before browser can access content. In this case, scraping is a clear violation.

(2) Site terms of service forbid scraping content, but human visitors can view content and ...
(2a) site takes technical measures to exclude bots. In this case scraping is a no-no, but for a different reason: it violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
(2b) site takes no technical measures to exclude bots. In this case, the answer is unclear, and may depend on the specific jurisdiction (e.g. circuit court).

(3) Site has a robots.txt file and ...
(3a) robots.txt allows scraping. In this case, even if the terms of service forbid scraping, the permission given here helps the scraper's defense.
(3b) robots.txt forbids scraping. In this case obeying robots.txt isn't in itself legally mandatory, but it may affect your case if the site takes other anti-scraping measures.

Not *explicitly*. Offering such a database would be an invitation for people to look at the whole data broker industry. So what you, as a databroker who tracks and piegeonholes every human being who uses the Internet to a fare-the-well, do to tap into the market for lists of gullible yokels? You offer your customer, literally anyone with money, the ability to zero in on the gullible by choosing appropriate proxies.

For example, you can get a list of everyone who has searched for "purchasing real estate with no money down". Sad people who buy colloidal silver and herbal male enhancement products. People who buy terrible crypto assets like NFTs and memecoins. Nutters who spend a lot of time on conspiracy theory sites.

It's kind of like doxxing someone. You might not be able to find out directly that John Doe lives on Maple St and works for ACME services, but you can piece it together by the traces he leaves online. Only you do it to populations wholesale.

Two economists were walking down the street when they saw dog poop on the sidewalk.

The first economist said to the second, "I'll pay you $100 to eat a spoonful of that dog poop."

The second economist figured it was an easy $100, so ate a spoonful of poop. Then he said to the first, "I'll pay you $100 to eat a spoonful."

The first economist ate a spoonful and collected his $100.

As they walked further down the street, the second economist said to the first, "We both ate dog poop for nothing."

The first economist replied, "Not true. We just added $200 to the GDP."

Yes. Much Cobol code was written before structured programming was standard. There are no unit tests. There are no classes to encapsulate complexity.

No, not really. A programmer can learn Cobol well enough to get work done in about a week. The problem isn't "learning the language", but learning about the legacy application you need to maintain. For instance, why is a discount applied to every invoice for customer #478324? Well, because he was the CEO's college roommate, but you won't learn that from the manual.

Only if you want to be pedantic.

There's been a lot of progress in programming languages in the last 60 years.

It is broke.

Your content has been removed because you look too much like Mr. Beast. If you think this removal is in error, we recommend plastic surgery to remedy the issue. Or you can file an appeal, but honestly, with the effort needed to succeed with that route, plastic surgery is probably less painful.

wait a week or two and the details will change completely.

Trump is nothing if not mercurial. His fans will tell you he's playing 11 dimensional chess... I have my doubts, but let's say that's true. The problem is that when it comes to the economy it's not chess. It's more like basketball, and the President is the point guard calling plays, except the play being called keeps changing before the players can execute the last call. It's a tough time to be running a business, you can't plan out more than a couple of weeks.

If you're afraid of spreadsheets in the financial industry, you should probably just keep your eyes closed. The entire industry is built on them to a very large degree. I've been in IT for almost 30 years, and over most of that, I've seen Excel spreadsheets used throughout the various accounting departments of companies ranging from small operations of a couple of dozen people up to multinationals with tens of thousands of employees, with some banks in there. Some of those spreadsheets are enormous and are doing complex calculations across sometimes a couple dozen worksheets, where changing one number can take several seconds to recalculate everything even on a reasonably modern computer.

Accurate statement: "Humans invented a way to harness CRISPR/Cas9 to create transgenic organisms"

Inaccurate statement: "Humans invented CRISPR/Cas9"

This isn't complicated.

In the new CEO's expertly crafted I-am-villain statement; he explains: "The past, he added in an email, is “simply not relevant to the new future.”"

I, um, guess it was polite of him to not talk about "the bigger picture" to the people whose eyes he shut down?