Can you explain more how paying double for a contractor for tax reasons saves the company money? Or is this all some nonsense setup by the company to shuffle the numbers to look superficially better for a specific metric?
It's nearly free if they simply changed their archiving process from deleted to read-only with a giant red banner warning at the top. Both expend the same amount of effort to do.
What a sweet position to be in. All the upside of the potential stock valuation windfall while none of the downside of putting your career and income on the line.
Wikipedia cites a travel book statung that while the place is "major fun", it warns that Bishop is a very unabashedly opinionated and potentially offensive person and will even bring up politics if you visit the castle.
I would agree if this happened organically and not all in lockstep with an excutive order from the government demanding to shut down all federal diversity initiatives.
It sounds weird but google seems like it used to be scary accurate back in the day, but results for me seem a lot muddier than they used to be in the past few years.
I've never seen a case where inheritance was superior to composition with a shared interface. Worst case with composition, it just returns the injected class's method directly. The beauty is that this really shines when you apply the liskov substitution principle.
At least for me, I've found chatgpt to be a good Google replacement. It might be helpful beyond that occasionally, but it really excels in spitting out existing data.
Back in the old days, before even xbox, online play was almost exclusively on computers on privately hosted servers, so you had mods actively banning anyone who gave any hint of cheating.
CPUs are trending towards heterogenous many core implementations. 16 core was considered server exclusive a few decades ago, now we're at heterogenous 24 core on an Intel 14900k cpu. The biggest limit right now is on the software side, hence my original comment. I wouldn't be surprised if someday the cpu and gpu become combined to overcome the memory wall, with many different types of specialized cores depending on the use case.
The point being made though is that business success is greatly influenced by existing wealth, since it gives you the luxury of being able to absorb the costs and risks involved. People like to give a few rare exceptions to the rule as somehow evidence that this isn't true.
The best analogy I've seen is that starting a business is like playing a game at a carnival. The more tickets you buy, the more attempts you have to win the prize. Meanwhile most folks are the carnival workers, never being able to get a chance to play the game in the first place.
It seems like online doctors are the future for ease of prescribing medication. I know they're primarily trying to maximixe profits by getting your business, but they are also way less emotional about the process than your typical local doctor who seems to think their job is to judge you based on less-than-scientific factors.
In the context of the future of heterogeneous computing, where your standard pc will have thousands of cores of various capabilities and locality, I very much disagree.
If you lie about the nature of your application, you'll only hurt performance in this configuration. You're not telling the OS what cores to run on, you're simply giving hints as to how the program behaves. It's no different than telling the threadpool manager how many threads to create or if a thread is long lived. It's a platform agnostic hint to help performance. And remember, this is all optional, just like the threadpool example that already exists in most major languages. Are you going to argue that programs shouldn't have access to core count information on the cpu too? They'll just shoot their foots as you said.
To clarify, what gets scheduled is up to the OS or runtime, all you're doing is setting relative priority. If everything is all the same priority, then it's just as likely to all run on e cores.
The beauty is that you don't care what hardware you run on, all you're annotating are very useful but generic properties such as which threads are sharing a lot of memory, or perhaps that a thread should have highest performance priority so that internally it stays on p cores instead of the more scalable e cores. Very simple optional hints.
I'm talking about close together in the cache. If a threadpool manager is hinted that 4 threads are going to share a lot of memory, they can be allocated on the same l2 cache. And no matter what, you're trusting software developers either way, whether it be at the app level, the language/runtime level, or the operating system level.
I'm more concerned if our domestic economy can face that much hardship at the whims of a foriegn app. Seems like requiring divesting was the right call. Thankfully the bill includes provisions to require divestment much earlier on.
In the individual level I don't care either, but having seen the damage Russia has done through their ongoing online influence, I understand how big a problem it is at the macro-scale.
What we desperately need before we get too deep into this is stronger support in languages for heterogeneous cores in an architecture agnostic way. Some way to annotate that certain threads should run on certain types of cores (and close together in memory hierarchy) without getting too deep into implementation details.
That's not entirely true. For example, being gay is hypothesized to give an evolutionary advantage because you can provide care for your sibling's children, who share their dna with you. Same goes for early menopause. That can extend to small villages where individuals may give up their own resources for a greater survival chance of their kin within the collective.
The question is more testing your full understanding of why this is a race condition, including understanding the possible side effects, since that's the only thing you start out with when someone sends in a bug report.