This vehicle was part of a manufacturer-owned highway fleet. That means it received proactive maintenance by trained personnel on a regular schedule, with full access to engineers for diagnosis and OEM replacement parts, and ran on good roads in the mild California climate. It's practically pampered compared to oilfield haulers, especially the ones that live long enough to be auctioned off. They're not comparable.
As an aside, some of the vehicles I've worked on serve in oilfields and I'd be horrified to discover 1% of them were catching fire annually.
That's what the H-2a program is. Many employers have avoided using it because it gives labor actual rights, requires an above-minimum wage, and includes free housing. All of those provisions are currently being gutted though.
It would be wild to make the argument that decompilation isn't transformative. A classic test is whether the derivative work serves a different purpose than the original. Google thumbnails for example. That seems pretty obviously true for decompilation, since it's the first step in quite a lot of modding, porting, and preservation uses that the original binary doesn't serve.
USAID was a soft power tool of the US to further foreign policy goals with international development programs. How do you accomplish that without sending money abroad?
Scheduled sailings were common in the Roman world, and some medieval European economies. It helped keep ship sizes small when merchants could anticipate the fixed schedule.
I'm sure the 5T multinational corporation is glad you're defending it against the small-time content creators bullying it, but you might notice that the people behind this teardown do in fact sell products they've designed. So do other popular creators in the teardown category like jerryrigeverything.
They can't do teardowns of their own products though. Anything interesting they'd find in a teardown should have been caught at the design stage, and they're hardly unbiased about their own products. At most they can do design decision videos, which many do. For opinionated testing they'll send their products to another creator instead.
You absolutely can use Google imagery. Here's the pricing page [0]. I also don't see how other imagery providers wouldn't be similarly effected, unless the issue is specifically with Google publicly distributing this imagery for free.
There are also much more relevant green space vector datasets that you should be using before using aerial imagery and object classification for any of the tasks you mentioned.
It's quite common to use aerial imagery in archaeological remote sensing.
Academics and governments are buying imagery from the same sources Google is. I've actually just straight up used Google maps for high latitude archaeology when a grant for imagery fell through.
I don't have any evidence, but I suspect the number of criminals that rely on aerial imagery to plan heists is negligible. On the other hand, I think most people would deeply regret if universities couldn't monitor foliage for land use/climate studies, archaeologists had to traipse through their land digging holes to do surveys, and local governments couldn't provide a whole range of basic services that depend on commercial imagery services.
Sure, not going to disagree that processes affect outcomes. As someone who lives with standards-following-practices every day though, I always have to caution people that following the process is often a vastly different thing than improving the outcome. For example, (most) certified compilers are great from a process perspective, and awful if your goal is less buggy software.
My opinion is that all the process in the world won't help if the people doing it don't care about the outcomes.
26262 is a process standard (a voluntary one at that), not a software standard. It barely even talks about software outside a couple specialized sections. You can also think of the CA program as a process standard that comes with active enforcement.
I've enjoyed embedding declarative syntax inside imperative languages, like LINQ and prolog as a dsl. The imperative code can express temporality much easier, and the declarative code allows you to throw that away when you don't want it.
Sure, but it feels like you're doing something helpful. It's like self-help books, or new years resolutions. The emotional fulfillment of feeling like you've done something is vastly more popular and marketable than doing the actual work.
The market is more complicated than that, unfortunately. Some properties can sustain high ratings on their other strengths (e.g. location, decor, view, heritage) regardless of the host rules and the clientele that's interested in them. There's also a problem with the rental market getting very thin for some locations and property types (e.g. 3+ bedrooms), so ratings effectively stop mattering.
As a personal example, I once stayed at a place that charged a $150 cleaning fee, but also required dishes + taking the trash out and down the street, which wasn't known until we opened the door. And of course there was a threat that failure to do so would incur a fee. Also a bit of ceiling plaster fell on my wife during the night. Still had a fantastic rating because it was a castle and I'd stay there again if someone else paid.
The East Bay Park district is the largest regional park system in the US, so I'm not sure it's entirely fair to call them "lazy". There's an ongoing fight over whether they should prioritize improving/maintaining/restoring what they already have or acquiring new land.
You could choose to detect small keys, but my understanding is that implementations entirely eliminate the issue by only searching factors with leading bits set (i.e. large numbers).
Definitely not. Their CPS requires that these keys be generated by an HSM and no HSM would ever generate these, so there's little reason to believe they're following any of their other controls.
The one hashing scheme should be technically better.
That said, I suspect you could avoid the coprime partitions and the issues they cause with semi-correlated permutations over block partitions and avoid hash collisions in the process.
This is a general point rather than an argument supporting the GP comment, but it can be shockingly hard to know what the correct response to particular situations is, or predict how a system will respond. For example, one system I know had difficulty differentiating people laying on the road from unmapped speedbumps (particularly at night), but was very good at recognizing them standing up. Someone spent a lot of time testing with dummies until perception improved. Another had no idea how to handle people in fursuits and halloween costumes, because it was incorrectly applying animal behavioral models to pedestrians.
Why are SLAs the bar for performance? Every additional second of execution time accumulates in the annual cloud bill, and using too much memory means I need a bigger box.
For example, the C++ replacement for a Java program bottlenecking my CI takes 1/3rd as long (with less variance) and runs on a smaller instance.
As someone who lives in a country with wolves and other apex canids (to the point where we have legal hunting seasons for them), I really don't understand the supposed "consequences" here. Canid populations just aren't an issue. There are no children living in fear (rather, we have to keep kids from trying to approach the cute animals...), nor are the occasional depredation events more than a minor annoyance. If a wolf or big cat in particular eats your lifestock, you file a form with the government for market-value compensation and complain about the hassle at the bar.
I'm not sure we read the same story. By the time of the inciting incident, the technocrat cyborgs (Titans) have been enslaved by the machine leader, which has no humans in charge of it.
I'm pointing out that Japanese companies can do that because they're organized and managed like Japanese companies. Tesla is not, and in fact lacks pretty much all the organizing characteristics and long term planning that enables keiretsu to function.
A.k.a the circular economy, or HP's modern business model. One of the difficulties has always been that if your materials are truly fungible commodities, why would anyone pay your premium instead of buying from a dozen other suppliers. HP makes it work with technical moats, but that doesn't apply here.