Two different teachers did this at my school (two years in a row). The second year, nobody fell for it. I felt a little bad for that teacher.
1,037 karma · joined May 13, 2018
Sources so people know I'm not crazy:
> Should we ban this user? YES
Then you request a review, and the support person double-checks that the output really does say "YES" and not "NO". Then they tell you they reviewed their decision.
The FCC takes illegal broadcasting VERY seriously and I think that should deter people from becoming criminals.
I'm using Seafile for that now, but I don't like that it needs hosting and I'd love to switch to something P2P and get rid of the server.
You weren't kidding. Fraud doesn't get more blatant than this
Naive question, I don't know much about this industry. But if someone from China or the NSA wanted to make counterfeit chips, why would they risk putting something different on the label? It seems like a weird place to draw the line. Would the NSA really say "oh no, we can't violate anyone's trademark!" and misspell the label and hope their entire operation isn't exposed?
EDIT: according to some random website, the human genome contains 3.2GB, and it takes a cell 24 hours to divide. That works out to 37KB/s, which is not very promising.
See: Situations Where A Client/Server RDBMS May Work Better
This is a bit off-topic, but something I've always wondered. What if the lockup period was staggered per-employee across those 6 months? i.e. say you have a 180-day lockup, and 900 employees. On day 1, the 5 longest-tenured employees can sell. On day 2, the next 5, etc, and on day 180, the last 5. This avoids the IPO crash on day 1, and also avoids a crash 6 months later. Would something this be feasible?
"We spent $x million developing a compression algorithm in Rust to slightly speed up a background process in our bloated Electron app!"
The internet exists, the industry has evolved, software has dependencies, and yes you have to download them (just like you had to download the SDK ISOs back in the day). But it's just one command, run it and get it over with, and after that up-front one-time pain you'll have a nice offline workflow.
That's the bullshit asymmetry principle in action. Let's go ahead and fact-check the first claim in the article.
>More than 91 percent of Salvadorans want dollars, not bitcoins.
Following the source, we see this quote (google-translated from Spanish):
>University indicates that, when presenting the option of both currencies, 91.4% of Salvadorans favor the dollar, 4.9% for Bitcoin and 3.7% do not. answered.
We also see:
>However, when asked about the decision to adopt Bitcoin as a currency, 35% said they were in favor and 40% against.
These both make perfect sense. Since my landlord won't accept bitcoin as rent payment, I would rather have dollars than be homeless. But in the future, maybe my landlord will accept bitcoin? If the poll is to be believed, 35% of the country wants that future, 40% do not, and 25% are undecided. I think that's a pretty amazing level of public support, accomplished in only a few months, especially in a country where 70% of people don't even have a bank account.
However you feel about it, I don't think a 35%-40% split in the polls is enough to call the president a con artist and declare it a failure one week after the law passes. The author's bias is clear.
---
I'll leave the rest of the article as an exercise for the reader, since (1) no one would take the time to read a fact check of the whole article, and (2) I don't have the time to write one. See also: bullshit asymmetry principle.
The real shame is that if the article were less biased, it would never have made it this high on the front page.