But but its not init!!! Get out the tar and feathers
But but its not init!!! Get out the tar and feathers
If Malaysia practices apartheid, why is the civilized world not boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning this country? This is what happens to countries that practice apartheid. It worked on South Africa and it can work again on Malaysia.
I wasn't even aware of this until I read the summary, and I read a lot of international news.
There are people out there who want new for new's sake. They are desperately bored with their lives and demand novelty. Long-term thinking is alien as well as boring. They're going to demand the mallard duck and the avocado, cheer when they are approved, and then never use them. Next round of Unicode, they'll have more dumb ideas to include.
Coming up: Unicode 16, when the committee gets fed up with all these dumb symbols that nobody uses and purges the list.
Maybe. My thought has always been that if fusion is close enough to get ballpark figures, we can build the necessary infrastructure and much of the housing in parallel with fusion development. Because the energy distribution will impose novel demands on the grid, it's going to require a major rethink on communications protocols, over-generation procedures, action plans on what to do if lines are taken out.
With fusion, especially, it's expensive at best to learn after the fact. Much better to get all the learning done in the decade until working fusion.
With all that in place, the ramp time until fusion is fully online at a sensible price will be greatly reduced.
Parallelize, don't serialize. Only shredded wheat should be cerealized.
(...as of about 8-9 years ago) The psych department had its own stats class, taught by a psych professor. You couldn't get an exemption if you had a high-level statistics course under your belt already, they insisted that psych stats were 'special' somehow, and needed to be taught differently.
If by 'special', you mean 'less rigorous' and 'taught by people that literally don't understand the definition of a function', then yes, the classes were special, and failed to prepare the students in any significant way for good statistical analysis.
I'm sure the story is the same at many universities.
It's because we've been told over and over by leftists like yourself that as long as large problems remain, it is pointless to work on small problems. Example: "I can't believe you shitlords are worrying about a law to prevent dog poop in the streets when there are people going hungry in Iraq! Won't somebody think of the children!"
You can change around the issues to ones that suit you best, but that's basically it. Of course, as soon as it gets reversed and used against you, it becomes invalid, and of course everyone expects this.
I read the article all the way through, and it SEEMS like you have to click on the ad in order for it to infect you. They don't specifically come out and SAY this, though. So, is this the case? Does not clicking on ads keep you safe? I thought just having a flash ad download and execute on your machine was enough, or are we not talking about this? There are references to "hardened landing pages" that infect the users, so WTF is up with that?
The funny part is that the malware installed is used to install click-fraud bots on infected machines, so the ad networks and/or end clients themselves are the ones being screwed out of money.
I take it you haven't met average people, have you? I'll bet you're surrounded by upper-class Ivy League (or wished they had gone to an Ivy) intelligent people like yourself all day long, and have used that great intellect to project those characteristics onto the rest of humanity. Why don't you actually get out there and talk to some of them? You'd be horrified, and withdraw into a gated community like so many of your fellow travelers have already done.
Just think of how stupid the average person is. And half of 'em are stupider than that!
-- George Carlin
The goal of an advertising company is not to make a profit. It is to maximize profits. They will do everything the law allows and then a little bit further. And then if nobody goes to jail, even further than that.
Also, please stop with "Mad Men" analogies, that is a fictional TV show that has nothing to do with reality. Might as well try to connect the oil companies to "Mad Max".
Let me tell you a true story of a guy I know.
He and his wife had a child, and afterwards, she lost interest in sex. Her desire never came back, and that was it. He still loved her and she still loved him, but he wanted to have sex. So he did the 'right thing' and divorced her. Now, their story isn't so bad. He divorced her and it was amicable enough, he still visits almost every day (they live down the street from one another) but they live in different homes.
My first advice to that guy would've been to have a consensual open relationship, but absent that possibility, I think that maybe having 'an affair' would've been a better solution than divorce. The result would've been nearly exactly the same (he doesn't even want a relationship with the women he sleeps with), but they wouldn't have had to live in different locations.
Your view of infidelity and relationships isn't wrong, but it's somewhat incomplete. I can easily come up with a slightly worse case for this--they could've been living in the USA, for instance (they're in the UK). That would've meant that she would've lost any health coverage that he brought to the family through his employment. You can modify this scenario subtly in a lot of ways to make it worse, and sometimes the least bad option is going to be cheating on your partner so you can stay married and in the same house and sane so you can raise your kids properly.
As someone that's consensually non-monogamous, this is all just abstract philosophy to me--I think there's too much emphasis put on sexual fidelity in the first place, and not enough on emotional support and availability. You can be monogamous with someone and still be a wholly shitty partner to them.
So don't be too quick to judge the people that were paying for memberships on the site. Some portion of them are CPOS (cheating pieces of shit, in Savage Love parlance), but some of them are almost certainly people (and, according to the analysis, almost certainly men) that want to stay married but can't live in a sexless marriage anymore, or want to explore other parts of their sexuality that their partner can't provide. You don't know the story.
The law should NEVER, EVER, EVER, provide protection over any data available behind public sector activity.
The public sector frequently claims the release of information will be burdensome; however, the public sector actors are not always forced, by statute (as they are in Minnesota) to ensure records should be held in a way which the sector cannot claim burden in failure to comply.
This needs to change.
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith