smolder has a comment in this thread expressing viability for some boards doing this.
724 karma · joined November 1, 2018
As a supplemental system the advantages would include redundancy, lack of a blind spot, and better situational awareness even when you're not planning to change lanes.
This resulted in premature conclusion errors. They went to the ATM to get money. They got their money so they left... forgetting their card.
When ATMs were updated they fixed the design error. Now the card popped out and had to be removed before money would dispense. This resulted in a spike of people leaving with money hanging out of the ATM because they had been trained that removing their card was the end of the task. (Which is why money now gets sucked back into the machine if it hasn't been removed fast enough).
The point of the anecdote (other than that you hire HCI experts before implementing an interface) is that implementing a new and objectively better system doesn't necessarily result in an objectively better outcome when replacing an incumbent worse system.
While I think there are many people would forgo that protection or pay less for protection it's one of the ineffable personal balances of security/cost/ease of life that I could easily see a jury saying "if they went the perfect security route then they could easily spend this much".
You can't ignore that cost just because they'd normally never earn enough to pay for that security... much like a company that causes an illness is on the hook for cost of treatment even if a person couldn't normally afford to treat themselves.
i.e. if a car jacker threatens to shoot you if you don't hand over your car that doesn't mean handing over your car was a great outcome.
In this hypothetical Putin had the choice between having a higher chance of accidentally falling down the stairs/out a window, or weakening his country economically. Putin doesn't mind watching Russia suffer more if it means a better personal outcome for him so the hypothetical choice is easy.
As the house cools at the end of the day the uninsulated wall will be colder than the other walls and if it's below the dew point condensation will form on it. If the temperature differential is high enough in comparison to difference in insulation between the walls then enough water will leave the air to keep the dew point below the temperature of the insulated walls and so that one wall will collect the majority of moisture (at 30C a meter cubed of saturated air carries about 30mls of water so yes condensation on a surface can heavily impact humidity). Once a wall becomes moist it will still acumulate water if it's below the dew point.
You likely will have seen real life examples of this when you look at single pane windows in otherwise insulated houses and seen them fog up/ have condensate form on them while the walls around them remain dry (if you haven't seen this but have been to houses with single pane glass in your area then condensation won't be an issue where you live).
As to your 75% efficiency point it will in fact have a lower efficiency as heat transfer increases with temperature differential. Since the room has a higher temperature differential with the outside the less insulated wall will be faster at transfering heat.
That is not to say that insulating 3 walls is a bad idea, it will almost certainly improve a rooms U value, but the worse the insulation on the remaining original wall, ceiling, and floor the less difference the 3 walls will make to the rooms U value and thus how quickly the room transfers heat.
The natural state of copyright is that it doesn't exist, it's only created because governments believe there is a benefit in enforcing it, be that benefit a greater production and distribution of works or more money in politicians pockets from lobbyists.
Implying that there is any legal copyright piracy is ridiculous as by it's definition the copyright does not extend to that area so there is no piracy. The closest you can come to the concept of legal piracy would be copyright privateering across legal jurisdictions.
Let's not pretend that billionares are working 1.44 million hours a week to earn 18000 times what the janitor earns working two jobs in an 80 hour week. The quality of a billionaires 'work' is different than 'real work' so what you feel intuitevely about work may not be a great touchstone for how billionaires should be taxed.
There's still a very real use for smart contracts in that you change what bad actors can do to act badly. Before they may have been able to breach a contract by ignoring invoices now they breach a contract by exploiting a smart contract loophole. Basically your shuffling the trust and risk around which can be a useful tool. i.e. it can be quite costly to enforce (and do due diligencece on) a contract with someone in another country so the cost and technical risk of setting up a smart contract may be much more preferable than the posisbility of having to legally enforce redress for breach in a regular contract.
I have no clue on dkim/spf/dmarc implementation details (so correct me if I'm wrong) but I can't imagine it costs google anymore to send an email as "yourname@example.com" vs "From yourname@gmail.com on behalf of yourname@example.com".
Assuming that's the case as soon as it was walked back from don't pay and your account, data, and purchases are gone to don't pay and only your email is gone but you're allowed to create a free email like everyone else they were in a unenviable position.
They'd basically have to waste engineer and support hours to make an objectively worse system just to reclassify domain names in emails as premium for a group that new customers couldn't be part of. Even then the price tag on premium addresses is much less with an email forwarder rather than the large price (for families) that google wanted.
I can guarantee you that 1 in 400 of our projects by budget at my work aren't ilegal or could even have questions raised about their legality. Like most companies if we found a project that was illegal or found an employee was routinely breaking local law to do his job that would be fixed immediately not in 4 years while we waited for it to become legal. And if it turned out I was wrong and people where purposefully commiting crimes against my fellow countrymen I'd be cheering the whistleblower who brought it to light while looking for a different job that wasn't such a cesspit of moral compromise.
The silliest part about your statements is you seem to be ignoring the problem by focusinng on only (I won't even say positives because your just saying it is no longer illegal and that there is no up to the minute evidence from inside a secret organization) the neutrals in the situation. You're doing the equivalent of saying yes the arsonist set fires and destroyed 1000s of acres but isn't the sunset pretty because of the smoke. Oh and look the firetrucks put out the fire after only a couple of hikers died. Plus people did want to do a controlled burn of that forest at some point so we shouldn't take away his lighter and certainly shouldn't charge him.
I think it evokes such incredulity that someone could point it out in good faith while also technically possibly being a correct statement that it's just humourous by itself.
It's got the irony that evidence is not evidence unless people know about it and the fact the agency is known for hiding what they do from even the institutions that are supposed to oversee it.
You've got the leap of faith to take at face value that an agency that denied a program existed for years, continued the program for years after it was pointed out it was illegal has said it's not doing it anymore.
The relative recentness of the actions by specifying 2019.
There's so much to unpack.
That opinion doesn't diminish the progress that has already been made or the accomplishments of the various engineering teams involved. It's just saying that when people talk about self driving cars they're talking about it as a drop in replacement to the general population of car owners' cars not as a curated location/digital track limited taxi service.
They basically removed a free tier that they explicitly guaranteed would be free "forever". Because of this people set up friends and family as users using the service. Google then told people no you have to pay ridiculous amounts per month for them to keep any apps they have already bought tied to your account and there's no way to seperate your account once it's tied in. They did this with a 2 month notice period.
They have since walked back some of that due to backlash. They're now saying that you have a 6 month notice period (July 1st) and that at some inderterminate time before july 1st they'll let you transfer your account to a normal free google account. You will however lose your email address as part of the process.
Free search engines work 95% of the time for your employees searches
Kagi can get a result in half of the remaining 5% (this is definetly the biggest assumption and I haven't had enough experience with kagi to say if this is realistic)
Your employee does 1 search a day and 30 days in a month (so kagi gets you 0.75 more completed searches a month).
It takes an employee 15 minutes to search manually through documentation or come up with a solved algorithm from first principals when the search fails.
In that situation your employees time needs to be worth less than $53.33 dollars an hour for the $10 dollar plan not to break even.
So play with the numbers how you want to make up your own mind but it does seem reasonable to argue there's a market for it at that price. Personal use where missing a result could have no cost is ofcourse another question.
edit: 0.75 not 1.5 searches a month extra
So as a napkin calculation how many normalised years of lost labour do we have from the deaths... 0.13 years from the 50-59 year olds, 40-49 0.08, 30-39 0.06, 20-29 0.08, 10-19 0.1, for a total of 0.45 years of lost labour from deaths if the whole country caught covid.
In a world were all economic activity can be turned on and off like a lightswitch it would make economic sense for Canada to flick that switch and leave it off for up to 5 months (of absolutely zero economic activity which is not the actual level of lockdown as essentials still run) to irradicate covid, from the impact of deaths on work produced alone.
So yes as a general rule I would argue that locking down entire countries can make great economic sense if you can lower your death rate (say by using the time where covid spread is reduced by rolling out a vacine that would reduce the lost time to 0.0045 years if everyone got it). Though of course you'd need to get into the nitty gritty of stunted business growth and if killing off 8% of people over 60 is a good way to reduce taxes needed to support them to have a definitive answer.
NB: I'll add that I'm replying to your question on the economic sense. Personally I find reducing the pandemic to this view deplorable but as some do argue it I thought I'd argue the countercase along those lines. I.E. Even if you're a heartless bastard only interested in money you should still be enforcing strict controls until your population is aproaching as vaccinated as it's going to get.
There's definetly an argument that dangerous tools should be regulated to varying degrees. If we're arguing regulations in this specific area you'd probably also be balancing it with regulations that sites can't close an account for reasonable rate automated access and that public research can have higher rates so long as they're not crippling.