Yeah, but now everyone knows it was him. Whereas to this day, nobody knows that I was the one who--

Ahhh, actually, never mind. Forget I said anything.

And here is some detail on the non-nuclear, coal-fired Israeli power plant mentioned in TFA.

So I guess "Millions of Jellyfish Invade Nuclear Reactor." Not "Reactors."

So by "nuclear garbage," are you also referring to the coal-fired Israeli power plant ambiguously mentioned in TFA? Are you advocating stopping all electricity generation?

Is it actually smaller? It seems more likely that someone took the actual dimension of 1mm, converted it to 0.0393700787 inches, and rounded that to 0.039 inches for the press release. Someone else regurgitating that press release took 0.039 inches, converted it to 0.9906 mm, and rounded that to 0.99 mm.

I added Around the World in 80 Days to my cart one day and forgot about it. Later in the week, I went back and saw a notice that the price of an item in my cart had changed. When I looked, I found that the movie had gone froma modest ~800 USD to over 32,000USD. I let it sit there and a few days later, it changed again, this time to ~720USD. I bought it immediately before it could get worse again.

.NET Developer on "Why I won't take a job at Expensify" "Their CEO sounds like a real shwanz."

This is actually why I hate BCC. I honestly have no idea how many different mailing lists and groups I'm a member of at work, since lists can be nested. I have a long list of rules set up for many of these lists, since I frequently don't care what's being said on them, and just archive for later reference.

But every once in a while, someone will ask a question to the wrong list, and someone else will reply-all with that list on the BCC, and it breaks all my rules. So a message shows up in my inbox, and I have no idea why I'm getting it. My only option is to try to script out a tree traversal to search the addresses on the To: line to try to find my address, or traverse my membership tree until I find an address on the To: line.

Sorry, should have been more clear on that. Volume/distance is more intuitive for efficiency calculations. If you have an SUV that gets 12 mpg and a sedan that gets 32 mpg, and I give you the option of trading the SUV for one that gets 15 mpg or trading the sedan for one that gets 40 mpg, you'd probably be more inclined to trade the sedan. But they're both being driven, say, 15,000 miles a year, trading the sedan only saves you 83 gallons, whereas trading the SUV saves you 250 gallons.

On the other hand, if I ask you if you would rather trade 8.3 gal/100mi for 6.7 gal/100mi or trade 3.1 gal/100mi for 2.5 gal/100mi, you can immediately see that trading the SUV will save you 1.6 gallons of gas for every 100 miles you drive, as opposed to only saving .6 gallons.

235 mpg is equivalent to 1L/100km. Since much of the world uses liters per 100km (which is actually easier for the human brain to reason about), the idea of a 'one-liter car' has been kicked around for a while now as a sort of holy grail of fuel efficiency. Converting it to 235 mpg seems like the fuel efficiency equivalent of body temperature being roughly 37 degrees Celsius, but PRECISELY 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

I thought the point of the story was that legitimate businesses are now commonly using a technique that was originally used exclusively for nefarious purposes. So I would say... two or three sentences ago?

Honestly, is there a script that tacks "Could this be used for nefarious purposes?" on the end of every entry or something?

Yes. #1: I have less time to play games, because now I have a job. #2: I can afford to buy new games before I've sucked every last drop of entertainment value from the last one, because now I have a job.

Yeah, let's base the precedent of accepting the use of this technology on its current state, because if there's one thing we all know about technology, it's that it never advances or improves.

I played through Mass Effect 2 on normal, and felt like a badass by the end, because in Mass Effect 2, you play a badass. You go up against impossible odds and save the human race.

Some of my friends played through Mass Effect 2 on Insane difficulty, and felt like badasses by the end, because they had done something hard.

Neither of these things actually makes you a badass, though. One is just pretending in a story, and one is just developing proficiency at a game. The difference is, I don't have any illusions about how badass I actually am.

No way. Please please please no. I tend to run with between 20 and 30 open tabs on Opera, and any time I approach that on a process-per-tab browser, everything slows to a crawl.

I would lean more toward, "If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was live in another country."