Men are only favourites by 1-2%. That's within the margin if error. Women are favourites by say 10% plus. The comment treats them the same, and base their theory on a binary concept. It's just bad logic and may even be a version of the Simpson paradox.
Unless you are God. You will never be able to even properly know what to factor in. Actually doing the experiment and analysis is exponentially harder. It's like saying well who cares about p=np, if you want to decrypt Aes without the key just make a super fast computer.
You need to look at the figures. The differences that support your argument are minor and within the margin for error. You could similarly concluded that women are just smarter across the board.
If this was back in the days I'd everyone running ie maybe. But now they're is less control over clients and their browsers. Mitm is much easier, toy just install a certificate on the browser. Going client side means you need to change and modify every browser and piece of software with internet access. Or install some slow crappy firewall type thing and try and monitor things locally....
This is just propaganda against other forms, by a well know conman who claims to be Satoshi. Someone should check the accounts to set I'd the positive comments are from him or bots.
Your idea seems fine just going by the article. Just don't make it ahistorical by making some brown Muslim being responsible for the lynching. Or don't have the black person raping and killing kids, which would then cause the mob the lynch him. Do you see and understand what the difference is? Anyway you reminds me of this comic, if you don't write the book there is none to blame but yourself. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/bah-2
Too be honest I read the article was like fine, maybe writers should try harder not too perpetuate racist stereotypes. I don't think the "mob" here did anything wrong. The title just seems misleading.
I've been wondering for years what people listen to. Spotify and YouTube have kept me in a bubble and I have no clue what people are listening to. I'm hoping there's a few gems in these lists.
Its extremely hard to detect hypoxia in yourself. Since your own detection apparatus is faulty it usually doesn't work. Your best bet is to see if anyone else looks like they have hypoxia, and if so should trigger the thought that you might as well. Think of it like being able to tell if you are in a dream, it takes most people some practice to tell, even though it seems like it should be simple
Once you take into account the force, you will still have the second law. Or you are just looking at the universe in reverse and once you look at the arrow of time it's all normal again.
I promise you that my dad works at microsoft and he has a chip I add to my ps4 to make it play Xbox games, you can't see it because it's too small becaise he also secretly works for the new. He taught me how to program the chips and I can do anything with them.
They are just some factors you may want to take into account. Usually things like this have some clear cut answers. If these questions require real thought and potential paralysis then that's a good thing. If you are paralysed by the fact you aren't sure what you are doing may actually do more harm than good that's good.
I wonder if some of the early core functionality such as replication, splitting, energy generation, etc. only has a few simple and effective possibilities? Are there any really simple RNA/protein patters that almost just have to occur from a statistical/mechanical view?
Anything is possible. You can never prove anything. In science/real life true means very likely and false means very unlikely.
So yes the simulation could be wrong, but I guess with everything we know and the error bars the answer was clearly no.
That's how it looks when you concatenate two file types. I guess in theory if you make the image a pixel, you effectively get the same output but with way less effort.
Yeh, it's kind of redicoulius how much of a bias there is. It sounds like some Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson disciples going out to battle for them. It's been established that journals of all kind, including physics are susceptable to accepting papers that aren't up to snuff. The is even an app which will write such papers for you.
It's just a hit piece. I'm more interested in the reason why to be honest.
The tools and systems we have around critical thinking and logical statements are nowhere near sufficient to solve the problem let alone computer. Give it a try you'll never get people to agree what the logical consistent statement best represents an article.
I'm not going to be much help. I'm not too sure what you would exploit. Trying to escape the amazon api through some kind of VM escape seems pretty hard and I guess would get you a much bigger bounty from amazon. Maybe use the auth keys to access the accounts?
Am I correct in thinking that the box the site is running on is complately different to the one the console is on? Is index.js a clue?
Anyway to more easily see what everyone else is doing run grab_commands() from the browser console.