gpu_explorer

I just want to be clear that it's incorrect to use the word "censor" or "censorship" to refer to the act of terminating someone's Twitter account for breach of contract.

Furthermore, because Twitter isn't the government, it's probably incorrect to use "censor" or "censorship" at all. "Discrimination" is the correct word to use if a corporation like Twitter terminated her account for an illegal reason. For example: if Twitter terminated her account because she was a woman or a person of color or a member of a protected class.

Twitter is not the public square. They app stores are not the public square. No one takes that argument seriously because it's not serious. Is it censorship that most existing book publishers are highly unlikely to publish a book of your or my political opinions? Should a publisher, or anyone else, be compelled to promote speech they disagree with? Would you want someone to compel you to write or publish lies?

Marjorie Taylor Greene has VASTLY more ability to get her messages out, and to therefore express herself, than the average American citizen. She can go on Fox News or MSNBC or she can have her office send out press releases. Please stop saying this is censorship. This is NO WAY meets any accepted definition of censorship in the frame you are using.

Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government. Twitter isn't the government.

Like it or not, they have a perfect right to terminate her account for any legal reason, including breach of contract. For the record, Twitter doesn't even need a "reason" as long as they don't terminate her for an illegal reason.

This might be difficult to understand, but it's not censorship.

Why should Twitter give up their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Sorry for this bad English of mine, but the_donald room was a sewer and it is very well documented by now. Society does not have to allow the voices of racism or racists, hating of women, or other antisocial behavior. Already racists do not go jail, women hating does not go to jail, hating gays does not go to jail, but there is no other obligation for tolerating it.

Racism is antisocial behavior. Racism is not dissent.

What can one person say? It is strange for this market to be similar with Enron. Keeping people in poor conditions without work is not good for so many people leaving jail. But he really hurt many.

כן כן כן

But also I think that it's tiresome for people without background in study of disease (or long experience like Bill Gates) to get involved. Not only this but it can be dangerous with any area like diseases.

This is the same as problem that you see in the White House of America with this son-in-law of president. Systrom has no experience with infectious diseases or study of diseases (or I did not hear about it yet and he does not say about it), and human society needs very much people who are experts right now.

Maybe Systrom could also use tech to help as this is his area of expertise.

Not used Airbnb too often because they had a very bad effect in Europe and other places. Really I wonder how they might not make money. It seems very easy to make money in this model. They do not even subsidize like ride share from anything I ever heard about.

Why would anyone conceal this story if already it is written in the Wall Street Journal? Is this because it is worse for such a story to appear on Hacker News?

Not native either. You want to look up burned rubber or carpet and rug burn. Sometimes when a thing moves very fast, it makes heat and this heat causes blisters.

Very interesting what you wrote in your article. Most interesting is how you seem to realize while designing your product that the spreadsheet surface is the most intuitive to users. They like also the baked results you present quickly. So you can see really the problem of your customer then.

What is really good is to assemble a library of visual queries for the customer. This is a good idea for the reason that many users have the same fundamental types of queries on their data. When finally you have enough of the basic queries that the user can do useful work without programming then you can find a way to customize this yes.

Have you data on how many similar queries customers use? Then you should know how to create the basic set of important operations.

They can make this very cool yes, but still isn't enough for me to enter Facebook. They should have more money for privacy.

Yes I know this of course but it seemed that leaving things out is faster and people can know it's just a toy.

Yes I limited all my travel, which means not replacing flights with travel by car. For flights home there is not option for driving anyway.

From my copy paste example. I fixed thank you.

Why was my remark flagged? It only says that Burgerim in Los Angeles tastes good, which is true. And the family which owns this is also very nice people.

What happens when the program exits?

These comments do surprise me yes.

The amount of conflict in the remarks is because both parties are right. It's very wonderful for Jeff Bezos to donate $10B dollars. But also it's right about private jets, which generate much carbon pollution.

It's fair to say that everyone has to do their part against climate problems. I for one make personal sacrifices yes. Less meat, less consuming, trying for local purchases as often as possible so the cheese I eat is not from France, driving a lot less, and also I fly much less. This year only one trip home instead of two.

For us to lift out of poverty many more people, it's worrying about the carbon costs of this. But now we have to behave smarter and people for whom sacrifices are easiest should make them first.

In this example no because of pointer. Where is the allocation for int* data located? It's not inside the object. You can think easily of the state of 'a' after calling move_into.

But maybe with int data[32] as a data member this is harder to reason about.

This is a way to illustrate move semantics and confusion behind what happens to the 'moved from' object.

I found it's much easier to understand the concepts behind move operations if you write an object that implemented move semantics by itself.

  class Object
  {
     int* data = new int[32];
     void move_into( Object& object )
     {
        object.data = data;
        data = nullptr;
     }
     ~Object()
     {
        delete[] data;
     }
  }

  Object a;
  Object b;
  a.move_into( b );

I think much of the confusion arises from wondering where is the allocation for int* data located? It's somewhere on the heap. What if the data member were int data[32] instead? What would the class look like? What would 'a' look like afterwards?

This. 1000x this.

But it doesn't work in Hebrew.