Comment Re:Not true (Score 1) 154
Sometimes a Good paperback at ThriftBooks is $1 less than a new one at Amazon so I just get the new one.
Weird market!
PS unless the recent printings have been Trust & Safety'ed.
Sometimes a Good paperback at ThriftBooks is $1 less than a new one at Amazon so I just get the new one.
Weird market!
PS unless the recent printings have been Trust & Safety'ed.
Me too, kinda.
Some might be lucky if they choose the dominant tech, but there are so many smart arses around that think they know better that whole genres of tech get fragmented to hell, so picking one with longevity is a challenge/gamble.
I just got fed up with the churn - it's just not fun any more - and have enough savings. Maybe.
It isn't.
Next.
Chinese Flying Taxi Sector is the name of my 3rd ep where i explore the intersection between old school jungle and modern minimalist ranchhouse
Good flick if you want to get a feel for how Pharma sales work.
I'm surprised it hasn't be Pfbanned yet based on who it highlights.
Iinm, there are several providers in the UK that don't charge extra for roaming in the USA. Three and O2 are ones too look into, and there are probably others.
I'm not sure how viable such options are for long term usage, but it's something.
Technically speaking the crime of fraud has three elements: (1) A materially false statement; (2) an intent to deceive the recipient; (3) a reliance upon the false statement by the recipient.
So, if you want to lie to people and want to avoid being charged with fraud, it's actually quite simple. You lie by omission. You distract. You prevaricate (dance around the facts). You encourage people to jump on the bandwagon; you lead them to spurious conclusions. It's so easy to lie without making any materially false statements that anyone who does lie that way when people are going to check up on him is a fool.
Not only is this way of lying *legal*, it happens every time a lawyer makes an closing statement to a jury. It's not a problem because there's an opposing counsel who's professionally trained to spot omissions and lapses of logic and to point them out. But if a lawyer introduces a *false statement of fact* to a trial that's a very serious offense, in fact grounds for disbarrment because that can't be fixed by having an alert opponent.
We have similar standards of truthfullness for advertising and politics because in theory there's competition that's supposed to make up for your dishonesty. In practice that doesn't work very well because there is *nobody* involved (like a judge) who cares about people making sound judgments. But still, any brand that relies on materially false statements is a brand you want to avoid because they don't even measure up to the laxest imaginable standards of honesty.
Now investors have lots of money, so they receive a somehat better class of legal protections than consumers or voters do. There are expectations of dilligence and duties to disclose certain things etc. that can get someone selling investments into trouble. But that's still not as bad as committing *fraud*, which is stupid and therefore gets extra severe punishment.
They always rant about Wayland, systemd, Pulse/Pipewire, devops, dkms, quic, zfs, etc.
I used to wonder why they don't just not upgrade their os, but then I realized they are lazy and want somebody else to maintain their old system for them.
I mean, even compiling gentoo with the right use set is too hard for these bellyachers.
Yet the humility never occurs to them that the non-lazy people who actually build distros are embracing the newer technology.
Instead the Old Farts case aspersions and ad-hominems at these hard workers. It's pathetic.
I'm done with their BS and won't help them understand anymore - the arguments are almost universally in bad faith.
Because otherwise they would just not upgrade. I have some Infomagic Slackware CD's from 1993 they might be interested in. Yeah, my first Linux box was over 30 years ago and I competently run all those technologies now. I don't fear change even though understanding new tech takes work and I can't just rest on my laurels.
If I understand your argument properly, you're suggesting that things will be OK with the reefs because "survival of the fittest" will produce a population of corals better adapted to warmer conditions.
Let me first point out is that this isn't really an argument, it's a hypothesis. In fact this is the very question that actual *reef scientists* are raising -- the ability of reefs to survive as an ecosystem under survival pressure. There's no reason to believe reefs will surivive just because fitter organisms will *tend* to reproduce more, populations perish all the time. When it's a keystone species in an ecosystem, that ecosystem collapses. There is no invisible hand here steering things to any preordained conclusion.
So arguing over terminology here is really just an attempt to distract (name calling even more so) from your weak position on whether reefs will survive or not.
However, returning to that irrelevant terminology argument, you are undoubtedly making an evolutionary argument. You may be thinking that natural selection won't produce a new taxonomic *species* for thousands of generations, and you'd be right. However it will produce a new *clade*. When a better-adapted clade emerges due to survival pressures, that is evolution by natural selection. Whether we call that new clade a "species" is purely a human convention adopted and managed to facilitate scientific communication.
You don't have to take my word for any of this. Put it to any working biologist you know.
^ a jpg you can hear
At launch it was the most expensive stock to short on the whole market. One of the fin sites did a cost breakdown.
I like their business model but wow, the claws EU allowed Apple to have are quite something.
Hopefully businesses can offer different versions of their app to each set of 999,999 customers Especially hobby projects.
Some military guys project AI could be more deadly than nukes.
And we're trusting Zuck with it.
I won't return in coin by calling you an idiot, because I don't think you are one. What I think you are is too *ignorant* to realize you're talking about evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 to refer to natural selection, a concept that's in the actual *title* of Darwin's book.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra