Well, the generally-accepted term has been "salesman" for over a hundred years. Whether or not you approve, it's definitely a conscious choice.
As an aside, can someone explain why a generic "-man" suffix is taken to indicate only the masculine by some people? It's no different than using the masculine for indefinite gender, so why the objections?
No wonder it runs so cool. That thing is an absolute unit of a box. It does give off that "premium product" feel, though, even to someone who's never owned a console and probably won't buy one. The fact that the stand has a screw holder, rotates closed, and comes with a plug for the whole shows a lot of thought.
That's an interesting starting point, though I do see some potential issues, especially in the human rights provision. Namely, who defines human rights? The UN has its own definition that has received some attention (and indeed, it appears this is the definition used), but it defines things such as social security, paid time off, food, clothing, housing, and a whole laundry list of other things; I along with some others scorn the UN's concept of rights because I don't believe one can possess a positive right.
So we reach the age-old question of, "Who decides?"
Another potential problem is the mention of promoting "equitable relationships". While this may be confusion due to translation, "equitable" has recently been taken to mean equal in outcome, which I will never actively encourage.
No, it's more like if you go to a surgeon, he may suggest a surgical remedy because that's where his expertise is focused. Same here: a guy writing for this site is likely to focus his research on denser urban planning as a solution, and we should bear that in mind.
No, I don't think I'd ever want to do that. I've lived for a short time in a dense urban environment and I hated it. I've seen pictures of European cities and they seen way too cramped for my taste as well. Like it or not, you will have to deal with the fact that most people don't want to live cramped up.
Also, do you think the people will just abandon their land if no one else buys it? "Nature" won't pay for it. They bought it from someone else and will therefore expect to be paid before relinquishing it.
Just as I feared, the government has abused so-called "emergency measures" to exert an unprecedented level of control over Americans' lives. Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
> Using threads -especially low-level threads- can lead to a real education in debugging.
Oh yeah it can. I'm still scarred by an error that took me a month to solve: I was self-teaching pthreads and kept getting an access violation with a stack trace starting at 0x0.
This is exactly right. The treatment of Secretary Clinton and Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh before the Senate are excellent examples of how the cameras cause senators pontificate and castigate rather than gather information and form policy. If senators wanted information to make decisions, they almost certainly wouldn't be questioning CEOs but rather a group of representatives from each corporation most knowledgeable about their concerns.
We can thank the Slaughterhouse Cases for the disaster that is legal precedent in this area; the idea that a citizen's privileges and immunities don't limit the police powers of a state is ridiculous. This would almost certainly apply to localities as well (see the fact that they can't violate civil rights protections.)
And yet, Justice Thomas is the lone voice in using this clause correctly, while the others largely prefer to leave it in its neutered state and distort the equal protection clause to fill gaps where necessary and create some bogus guarantee of fairness. See Timbs v. Indiana for an example of just how ridiculous this particular area has gotten. There is some hope that Gorsuch may come around to Thomas' view, as he wrote a similar concurrence.
It is certainly a privilege of a citizen of the United States to run his business as normal. Police powers cannot overrule that. I fear that the precedent has already been set, however. The court system is too slow to work these things out while they're happening, and a ruling against an action is little solace once it's already happened. There must be significant punitive action against any state or municipality that attempts to do so.
I'd like to see Dillon's Rule states threaten to dissolve and re-constitute any municipal government that instituted any lockdown order at all. It would also nice to see criminal prosecution of those who threatened citizens who simply wished to go about their lives in violation of the constitution. A government official who does something of that sort without authority is acting as an autocratic thug and any physical enforcement of such directives is assault and must be prosecuted as such.
It's a chance for investors to get in on the next big thing and invest specifically in data warehousing. No one can put his money directly into BigQuery or Redshift.
Edit: why are so many people downvoting this? Is there some other reason for Snowflake's valuation (aside from tech bubble playing a role)?
Okay, I don't really use social media. No Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tick Tock, Snap Chat, or whatever else the kids these days are using. What happens with those jobs, loans, etc. if no data are available?
This is correct, and why I began by stating that this wasn't a normative statement. I wasn't passing judgement on whether or not they ought to continue precautionary measures, I was simply stating that I don't believe they will continue.
All normative opinions aside, this cannot become a new normal. People will not tolerate it. The majority of the population will not continue to remain cloistered in a small area due to the vulnerability of a minority. It's also economically untenable. So no, I don't think it will. We may, however, see significantly more deaths from those at risk, or they may be stuck entirely holed-up as a result.
If your son is stealing your stuff to go buy booze there's a bigger issue and the answer is not invasive biometrics, nor is it government restriction of alcohol sales. Kids will drink if they want to; only a willingness not to do so will stop them.
I honestly don't care that much about kids buying booze. The "think of the children" argument also typically leads me to be suspicious of the motives of those that make it. Kids are going to drink if they want to; I didn't because I chose to do otherwise, not because I couldn't.
Or we could (radical idea here) not use biometrics. I don't mean to be dismissive, but what advantage does this provide over opening a web site and hitting "pay" or maybe some sort of NFC tap? This looks like biometrics for the sake of being cool and flashy, which is not a trade-off I'm willing to make.
Perhaps this is not the case in your nation, but here in America, they are most certainly not professional. I don't set the standards, but I wish to operate in a professional setting, so I abide by them. There's also the fact that they're inextricably linked with crime and prisons, and I would never wish to be seen as associated with such things.
Because they're unprofessional and I have no reason to want one. Like anything else, they have risk (potential infection, chemicals in inks), and I would derive no benefit from having one.
Seconded, and I don't have much of an accent at all (especially if I'm focusing on it). Even without that, east- and west-coast natives hear I'm from Texas and jump to the "stupid redneck" thing.
I'm saying that an emotional attachment doesn't affect whether I believe it's moral to kill him. It causes me to place a higher value on my dog such that I value him more alive as a pet than dead as food. Were I starving, I'd value him more dead as food. This value doesn't change whether or not it's moral to kill him.
As an analogue, I might have a car I like. The car could be worth more to me than its fair market value because of an emotional attachment, and that may mean I prefer not to sell it. If I'm in dire need of money, however, I'd probably sell it anyway.
No, I seem to not be communicating my thoughts properly. My moral framework is, "killing animals to eat is okay." I have no issues with it. My preference is to keep my pet alive because I do not need him for food and I like him better as a pet. I didn't say I wouldn't eat him: I would have no moral issues killing him for food, though I probably wouldn't much like it. If not for the fact that animals that die of natural causes aren't very tasty, I'd probably eat him when he died.
No, I don't believe there's anything wrong with killing animals for food, I just like my dog more as a pet. I don't believe there's something morally wrong about killing one's pet for food, either.
Well, you can't just "let nature reclaim land", people own that and you can't force them to turn it into a nature preserve. There's a huge violation of private property rights implicit in your proposition.
For anyone that hasn't yet seen it, I'd highly recommend watching Ars Technica's video interview on Amnesia and how it created its unique atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMl2la8-3-o
Along with the rest of their War Stories videos, for that matter. The interview with Andy Gavin on Crash Bandicoot is great, even though I never played the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izxXGuVL21o
I'm pretty sure he was using "men" in the generic since, similar to "humans". That said, looking at stats like suicide rate reveals that a literal reading may be more correct.
No, cooking single meals for one person isn't time or cost effective. Make something like a big batch of beef stroganoff, refrigerate some, freeze some, and it will last a long time.