In the old days when there was a decent severance package, volunteering for layoff was a good way to retire with a bonus. Other than a few specific times there wasn't a formal way to do so, but there was an informal path. Way back when I was on vacation over the layoff. When I came back someone I enjoyed talking with was gone. I found out he had been laid off and left with a smile on his face. (He was quite a bit older than me.)
Two weeks ago people thought it was going to be a Microsoft developed upscaler. Now we know what it is: A common API for writing a single interface to your engine for all the upscalers.
Ummmm... you've been able to do that for like 5 years. You can play on your Phone, TV, PC, XBox, Laptop, etc. They also let you stream your personal Xbox to other devices.
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/clo...
Xbox consoles
Play on your Xbox Series X|S and Xbox One consoles. Experience games right from the cloud.
Apple earlier claimed
Addressing the complex security and privacy concerns associated with web apps using alternative browser engines would require building an entirely new integration architecture that does not currently exist in iOS and was not practical to undertake given the other demands of the DMA and the very low user adoption of Home Screen web apps.
I wonder which part of Apple's earlier statement was incorrect? (personally, I'd say "all of it"...)
So maybe I'm holding it wrong, but every time I use bing I seem to get results that just don't match what I'm looking for, as well as google. Take the search "confluence java jsoup".
If you're looking for documentation, does the (autocomplete-suggested) search term "confluence java jsoup documentation" provide the desired results on the first page?
It might be that Microsoft reckons people primarily search for comments about using the thing, and Google reckons people primarily search for official documentation of the thing? In Microsoft's Visual Studio, say you're coding in C# and got a compiler error and press F1 (help) to learn about it, they changed the behavior about 10 years ago. It used to take you to the official documentation for that error code which was typically dry and useless. They changed it to a bing-powered search for user comments, particularly stackoverflow. That came from UX research which showed that this ended up getting users unblocked quicker to fix their compiler error.
She was his wife at the time the crime of insider trading, and a wife cannot testify against you.
"Spousal testimonial privilege" says that the spouse can't be *compelled* to testify in proceedings relating to their spouse, not that they can't testify. (Wikipedia says that in the US sometimes it's the witness-spouse who has this privilege, sometimes the party-spouse).
Nobody believes that Tiktok is any more abusive than all the other light entertainments out there.
"Witch hunt" is when someone did no wrong but you whip up hysteria to persecute them.
Do you believe that Tiktok is about as abusive as the other light entertainments? Do you believe that they all are abusive? Then it's not a witch-hunt.
What I want in the next generation is something powerful enough to do raytraced Minecraft, with a good view distance...
Guess when your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
I think when progress is being made at the phenomenal rate it is right now, then it's exactly the right course of action to see just how versatile your hammer is.
What a surprise, when you use any criteria other than merit, you get something else rather than merit! Gosh, what a revelation!
Sarcasm aside, there isn't an objective thing called "merit". It's self-defining. Professors in college, business leaders, lawmakers, come up with self-serving definitions of merit "Merit is someone who is good in the same way that I was". It's self-reinforcing. It's easy to be self-deceptive about merit, to think there's some objective quality that your definition of merit is close to, but I don't think it truly is except in a tiny number of black-and-white cases ("had fewer patients die" or "won more court cases" or "made more money") and even those largely boil down to "played the current system well" rather than something more objective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.spiked-online.com/...
It's more like this. [snip]
I've numerous times experienced my banks (Chase, and First Tech) make unsolicited telephone calls to me and, near the start, say "please confirm your address" before they proceed.
That's nonsense of course. (1) The verb "confirm" doesn't work that way; (2) I should never disclose my details to an unsolicited caller. Sometimes I tell them "I'm not going to give any information until you've confirmed a few things for me first... what is X? what is Y? what is Z?" to which they get flustered because I've deviated from their script. Other times I tell them I'm going to hang up and instead telephone them on the number publicly listed for their institution, to which they respond with irritation.
I keep getting emails from First Tech which contain links for me to click on. I've four times written back to various people in the company (from support staff up to VP) telling them that I'm never going to click on a link in an unsolicited email, and it's bad practice for them to send me such things, but again I've only been met with irritation.
I'm not going to side with the banks on this one until they've massively cleaned up their act.
How exactly is it the bank's fault if some dimwit follows the instructions of a Nigerian prince to hand over his account info?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bank: Sit down Mr Coleman, I'm afraid I've got bad news about your account.
Customer: Really?
Bank: I'm very sorry to say that someone's stolen your identity.
Customer: Oh God! Do you know who it was?
Bank: Well, they said they were you, but...
Customer: Of course. So, what happened?
Bank: Well, it was on the bank website. Someone logged in and committed identity theft electronically.
Customer: I see. Did they take anything else?
Bank: No.
Customer: Oh good. So, all the money's still there.
Bank: What?
Customer: Well, it's just my identity that's gone; none of your money.
Bank: Well, no, they did take... they emptied your account. It's identity theft.
Customer: They took all the money? That sounds more like a bank robbery.
Bank: No, no! If only. No, because, we could take the hit. No, no, it was actually your identity that was stolen. Primarily. It's a massive pisser for you.
Customer: It's actually money that's been taken?
Bank: Yes
Customer: From you?
Bank: Umm... kind of.
Customer: I don't know what you want from me other than my commiserations?
Bank: No, you see, it was your identity that... umm... they didn't just... they said they were you!
Customer: And you believed them?
Bank: Yes! They stole your identity!
Customer: Well, I don't know, because I seem to HAVE my identity, whereas you seem to have lost several thousands of pounds. In the light of that, I'm not clear why you think it's my identity that was stolen rather than your money?
Bank: I know it can look a bit like that, Mr Coleman. But the sad fact is that absolutely nothing has been taken from this multi-billion pound bank, whereas what they've taken from you a small businessman with a wife and small children, is your whole self.
As a man in his late 60s, I've gotten the impression over the years, and my doctor has not denied this, that every man will die with prostate cancer. Notice I said "with", not "of". My interpretation is that the biological engineering of the prostate just isn't that good - they're failure prone. And let's face it, they're good enough. They practically always get us through our reproductive years. The "bad" cases of prostate cancer - like Frank Zappa and Daniel Fogleberg, hit in the late forties or early fifties. That's after normal reproduction, though still during child rearing years. Usually it's later than that, when the kids have flown the coop.
The other factor is if or when prostate cancer metastasizes. If it does, it's really nasty, one of the nastier cancers, and doesn't respond well to treatment. But catching it early and proper treatment generally keeps it at bay. It's a "maintainable" condition, which is probably why they're looking at re-classifying it.
Yes, my father had it. A friend of mine has it. My brother might have it. I had a scare almost a decade ago but am apparently OK. I absolutely get my routine check on it.
Sounds like this is a source of competitive advantage for Exxon if their competitors have emission targets while Exxon can ignore them and pollute to their hearts content. I don't see how this claims helps the activist's case.
The activists' case is that their proposal should be brought to the annual meeting, like other proposals. Exxon's case is that it shouldn't be brought. I agree with what you say about it being a competitive advantage but I don't think it affects this case; it only would affect this case if there were some meta-rule, such as:
* "only proposals that align with shareholder interests should be brought to a shareholder vote" (which would be wrong because shareholder interest is measured by shareholder vote)
* "only proposals that the board thinks will do well for the company should be brought to a shareholder vote" (which would be wrong because it places the board above the shareholders and is vulnerable to conflict of interests e.g. if the board decide based on what's best for them)
* "only sensible proposals should be brought to shareholder vote" (this is where "competitors do it too" would support that the proposal is a sensible one).
Maybe instead of this case, you were talking about how likely the proposal is to be agreed upon by other shareholders. If other shareholders feel that following industry norms is an important way to future manage risk, then the claim will help the activists' case. If other shareholders feel that maximizing competitive advantage while they can is more important, then the claim will hurt the activists' case. I don't think you can assume one or the other until the proposal has been brought to shareholder vote.
Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol