xen0

Maybe you're OK navigating around that person, but many are not, and I'd rather not have to bother.

Yeah, there's only so much you can glean, but just like they're looking for red flags from you, you're looking for red flags from them.

In fact, we were literally asked to.

> The pilot then told the Haradas about the attack and the two agreed to help him. Nishikaichi and Yoshio Harada overcame a guard and escaped to destroy the plane and papers, then took Niihauans Benehakaka "Ben" Kanahele and his wife Kealoha "Ella" Kanahele prisoner.

Perhaps, unlike tourists driving RHD cars, they're much more able to kiss the hedge on the narrow roads there without fear when other cars have to pass.

I like to think I've enjoyed some success over the past 11 years, but I would definitely fail your friend's arbitrary criteria.

It's a fantastic feature; meaning I am never distracted on a European Monday morning by what someone sent me on an American Friday afternoon. ;)

I feel that Brood War embodies this part of Clausewitz quite well.

The question is specifically what weird undefinable numbers have to do with anything; why those are specifically a problem.

Let S be the set of all non-finitely defined real numbers.

Let (Sn) be the sequence of sets such that Sn = {s in S : n-1 < s < n}

Am I allowed to say "let s1 be an element of S1"? Or "s2 an element of S2"? (Note that we don't need the axiom of choice to get a choice function for this sequence; I can easily construct one; does that change anything?).

If so, your problem is not with the axiom of choice.

Edit: "Not being able to describe the choice a choice function makes" and "not being able to construct it" are really the same thing.

It's different because there's nothing that says such a choice function _cannot_ exist (short of an axiom that says explicitly so).

Must it?

"Let x be the smallest element of the half-open interval (0, 1]" isn't really something that you can say *.

* Assuming the standard ordering of reals; sure you can say it's defined for some well-order, but then you require the Axiom of Choice anyway.

But the entire point of the axiom of choice is to say "that's fine; you're still allowed to use 'unconstructed' choice functions in your proofs".

Would the OP reject the statement "let x be an element of the set of numbers that cannot be defined with finitely many symbols"; such a statement does not depend on the AoC, but I think the OP complains about making even a single choice.

Why would Google care? This fund owns Google stock; it isn't giving money to Google, it gave money to whoever it bought that stock from.

Selling a fraction of a percent of the total in the market might move the stock price a little, but probably not much.

'Moving their money' just means transferring that stock to someone else who may have more faith in the company's strategy.

Maybe not impactful, but not evil.

Now I work for a big tech company. Maybe it's evil, but if that's true, at least evil pays better.

Source: writing from Germany on Tuesday the 29th.

The majority of companies seem to view email addresses and phone numbers as largely permanent identifiers.

Then there are the companies that actually provide you those things. To them, what they provide you is definitely not permanent.

A feature is that pozi is compatible with Phillips bits, just without its advantages.

For people with older or smaller toolkits, that's actually quite helpful.

When crossing the street, other people in cars don't want to actually kill you, and those crossing are generally aware and cognizant of the danger. The biggest mistake you can make is 'forgetting to look before crossing'; a lot of the time that won't kill you.

The setup here is very different.

The voltages involved in the wood burning process is far outside of most people's familiarity; your intuition for electricity just doesn't apply.

We're not just talking 'mains supply can be dangerous'; electricians routinely work on switches and such without bothering to shut off the circuit (even though this is typically ill-advised). Mistakes with mains, whilst they _can_ kill, usually just result in big bangs and breakers being tripped.

What you think 'protects' you just doesn't; your insulating gloves, shoes, wire covers, even air gaps; they could just fail you, and badly.

Even aware of this, knowing 'touching the probes kills me', a tiny mistake, such as 'brushing my insulated leg on the piece of wood I am working on, easily made despite being careful, has a very high chance of instantly killing you.

The only way I could see to make this process 'safe' is to not be in the same room as the equipment when it's connected to the power.

How much are you willing to pay for a legally dubious benchmark?

I really recommend preparing for them; think hard about your projects, things you've done, why you did what you did, and so on. If you need prompts, I found Amazon's leadership principles (cringy though they may be) to be a good starting point. In fact, having prepared for Amazon's, everyone else's was easy.

Now I ask these questions and it's super obvious when people haven't prepared for them. I feel bad sometimes. I personally prefer them to the hypotheticals, but people do tend to freeze up.

Moving away from data collection to analysis, the fraction of PhDs went up, but only reached 1.0 when considering the sub-group specialising in structural biology.