You can be proud of whatever you like. The problem was you declaring that your ethical system was universal.
Most of our ancestors had no problems personally killing and consuming animals. Your abhorrence of the practice is not universal.
348 karma · joined February 18, 2014
Most of our ancestors had no problems personally killing and consuming animals. Your abhorrence of the practice is not universal.
Well yeah, that's a problem as thermal paste is only meant to fill in the microscopic irregularities of the contact surfaces and isn't some magical thermal bridge. Thermal paste has thermal properties on par with most condiments. Thermal pads are particularly bad. I would use a metal shim to bridge such a gap, not just more thermal paste.
Other people have different value systems to you.
No it wouldn't. It would just require spending more money on public sanitation.
Of course if you let homeless congregate and don't provide the services to clean up after them the place is going to get filthy. But there are more solutions than getting rid of the homeless.
There are no paywalls, it is like a wealthy patron paying for a public concert.
I could make an argument that using a sport which has massive popularity outside Western European culture is a sign that the interviewer was thinking about diversity.
Sports are good candidates for these challenges as they have reasonably complex rule, so it isn't necessarily that the interviewer was just selecting something they liked.
Like what?
Even something like maths can be claimed to be "viewed generally as a male domain". And once you start accounting for ethnicity and social background I think you would find it incredibly difficult to come up with something that had no possibly offensive cultural baggage.
Actually, maybe the challenge could be to design a challenge that was neutral.
P.S. Considering soccer's limited popularity in the US I doubt most candidates would know the rules.
In fact running multiple operating systems is more likely to lead to a misconfiguration issue which allows an attacker into your network.
There have been recent issues but lets not pretend they aren't the sort of mistakes Notch liked to make.
Also, a meritocratic system only requires the "winners" are chosen on the merit of their work. It will never be possible to eliminate all disadvantages which might prevent somebody from achieving some abstract concept of potential.
I find voting systems tend to squelch most of the idiots on technically focused forums.
It does not require "Click here to get owned" level of work around. I'm perfectly fine with needing to boot into the equivalent of single user mode and entering some security key. But if I want to break the security model on a device I own I should be able to.
> Why is it ok on mac? Because many computer users are still dependent on non-appstore distributed software. Particularly developers. Nobody has evolved that dependency on ios, so it's not necessary.
That is circular reasoning. The "dependency" doesn't exist on iOS because Apple tries very hard to prevent non-appstore distribution being a viable avenue for app developers.
Apple aren't using that model just for security, but also so they can tightly control the platform and restrict what the device owner can do on it.
Real security needs to be layered.
"1.5 minutes" "One and a half minutes" "one minute and thirty seconds"
The use of the colon to separate hours/minutes and minutes/seconds means that you need to supply units to tell which it is, but "1:30 minutes" seems wrong.
It doesn't matter if somebody is a racist/sexist/homophobe as long as they don't act it out.
It is notable that some 4chan competitors have gone out of their way to say they don't log IPs and have distributed their infrastructure.
It was also probably common understanding that the Sergeant Major ate misbehaving enlisted men for breakfast.
That is just a barracks room tale, similar to the one that .50 BMG can only legally be used on material and not personnel (which you can allegedly get around by aiming at the enemies web gear or helmet).
The Hague convention banned hollow points because they were thought to be cruel and unnecessary. The convention continues to largely be obeyed because in general military use ball ammunition is better (eg it can shoot through light cover without deforming) and cheaper.
Reader reviews are okay for the best sellers if you read a lot of reviews (but I find it tends to heavily skew towards those who loved the book, with a handful of haters), but I find it is pretty much worthless when it comes to average books which only have a handful of reviews.
I'm thinking of a more objective system. It could be based on reader reviews but would need to do something like making the review rank the book on a a set of criteria and then figuring out if the reviewer is trustworthy by cross comparison. eHarmony for books.
Without the publishers filtering you can't just pick a book at random and be ensured it probably won't make you want to claw your eyes out (at least publishers would clean up the major spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and incoherent plots).
So what is left is popularity, and as already established that doesn't stop shitty authors writing books.
Peer recommendations are a real crap-shoot unless you have vetted your peers thoroughly, which takes time.
Whoever can build out an automated system to rank and recommend self-published books will make a fortune.