343 karma · joined August 30, 2015
Monitor mode is a level higher, and allows for capturing all wireless frames regardless of what SSID they are for, and regardless of whether they contain IP packets or are just signaling like beacon and connection requests.
Your suggested confounder is plausible, but I find the possible confounders in the other direction even more plausible:
- Many places have policies like "proof of vaccination /or/ positive test required", which would inflate the number of confirmed cases in less vaccinated areas.
- Someone with reduced symptoms due to vaccination is less likely to notice them and thus decide to get a test, or to have symptoms severe enough to be hospitalized and thus definitely get a test.
And then the really scary one:
- If vaccines hide symptoms but don't significantly reduce transmission, a vaccinated person is less likely to stay at home during an infection, increasing community transmission.
Further evidence for that hypothesis comes from comparisons of viral load in confirmed cases between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, which finds no significant difference: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v...
That's the problem with "reality" - the reality you see is driven by the media that reports the reality to you. Presumably the media you read likes to run stories like "lots of cases in Florida" to score points against the "other team", while ignoring deeper analysis like the paper I linked.
It sounds like you're assuming that increases in price don't increase quantity supplied. While this may be true in some contexts (e.g. completely unexpected global crisis), there are many cases in which it does:
- In a local crisis, an increase in price encourages shipping in goods from areas not in crisis. Why would someone take the risk of shipping for the same price they can get elsewhere?
- As the GP mentioned, the ability to raise prices provides an incentive for stockpiling goods. Why would someone incur the expense of maintaining a stockpile in exchange for no benefit in a case where the stockpile is needed?
I'd also argue that it's very unlikely for price increases to render all basic necessities impossible to afford, even for poor people. Consider water - even for someone living in poverty what percent of their budget would you guess is allocated to water? Maybe 5%? So even a doubling of the price of water (for context, price gouging laws typically restrict price increases to around 10%) would only increase that to 10%, leaving plenty of room for them to reallocate not-as-essential parts of their budget. For food perhaps the original percent is higher, but there's much more opportunity to substitute cheaper foods in a crisis situation.
I believe GP's point is that a tax return only lists a small subset of the taxes being collected from a citizen, giving the impression that the amount is smaller than it is.
Social Security taxes are a great example of this - for W2 employees they don't show up on their tax return at all. And even if the employee looks at the box labeled "social security tax" on their W2, that's still only half of it, because the other half is a "payroll tax" that the employee never sees, even in their "gross income".
When you add consumption taxes, making sure to include both the ones that show up as "sales tax" on a receipt and the ones that get baked into the price (e.g. gas taxes), it becomes extremely difficult to come up with an individual's fully-loaded tax rate.
Indeed. In that specific example, the author generated 24 binary digits, but only on 7 occasions was the digit the same as the previous digit. There were 23 opportunities to do so, and in a truly random sequence of digits the chance of any digit being the same as the previous one is 50%.
Applying the binomial distribution, the probability of observing 7 or fewer repeats with 23 trials and a 50% chance on each trial is only 4%. So with p = 0.04, we can reject the null hypothesis that the author's generated sequence is random, and conclude that it is biased.
There are online demos where you can try this yourself: https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/in...
GP's point is that calories coming from a "healthy" source doesn't mean they don't count. Drenching one's salad in olive oil rather than canola oil won't help someone lose weight, nor will switching from soda to a fruit juice with the same amount of sugar in it (ancillary benefits of e.g. vitamins notwithstanding)
I think the analogy still holds here. Medicine is highly regulated because people sometimes die as a result of medical intervention, and as a result of that regulation (hopefully, but debatably) less people die, but that doesn't prove that medicine is designed to kill people.
Not true. I just checked on my own phone, and the toggles for "Find My iPhone" and "Find My network" are separate. Disabling the latter only warns you you can't locate your phone "even if it's offline", i.e. if the "standard radio" is off.
- e^(iτ) = 1, meaning that taking a full revolution around the complex plane brings you back to 1, where you started
- e^(iτ/2) = -1, meaning that taking a half revolution takes you to the opposite of where you started, -1.
If you insist on the "contains the additive identity" formulation (which IMO is gratuitous because e^(ix) is all about the complex plane, not regular addition and multiplication), you can do either e^(iτ) + 0 = 1, or e^(iτ) - 1 = 0.
Alice: "Where can I buy some tire chains around here?"
Bob: "There's a gas station down the block."
If Bob knows that the gas station down the block does not in fact sell tire chains, he has not technically lied. However, he has violated the Maxim of Relation by providing information irrelevant to Alice's question, leading to a misunderstanding if Alice assumes it is relevant, implying that the station does sell tire chains.
It might end up illustrating the opposite point though, since players who lose everything to these scams are often surprised and driven away, which is the opposite of what social networks want. In comparison, the possibility of losing a ship to a pirate is pretty clearly advertised.
To complete the analogy, I would think social networks should try to prevent the dogpiling and cancelation effect that shock and destroy people, while allowing them to be occasionally exposed to different opinions. Unfortunately it seems the opposite is more often the case, as in EVE.
> It is also considered an exploit to commit a criminal act and prevent ship loss to CONCORD by any means.
It's likely you're thinking of "suicide ganking", where the attacker is destroyed by police but still turns a profit due to the loot their partner can take from the victim.
You also mention ships capable of preventing warping. Those ship can only be used in "null sec" space, where there are no police ships. And even if they could be used in "high sec", preventing warping would not prevent a pirate from moving up to a target using normal engines and destroying them.
Depends on whether you're Hungarian :P
In all seriousness, I'd go with the prefix if these are part of a large flat namespace, but if there were a lot, then they should move to their own package and become `animal.Cheetah`.
Purchasing gasoline from a gas station is a highly commoditized transaction; what makes it more or less "legitimate"?
The latest attempt to patch the issue is to force reclassification of many independent contractors into employees. What unforeseen effects might this have? Does AB 5 have enough special cases to avoid making things even worse?
Yes, this is a reasonable way to test an elevator. "Cheating" in this context might mean surreptitiously swapping out the load for a lighter load, so that the elevator appears to pass the test while not actually supporting the heavy load during real operation.
For a real-world example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
There is unlikely to be a silver bullet that can make any test completely immune to cheating.
One other issue I've struggled with is in propagating errors across goroutines. If an error is created in the child routine, `runtime.Callers` doesn't include any stack frames from the parent. Assuming the parent wraps the error, it sounds like Eris would give you at least one line of the parent stack trace. Does it handle this specifically by including all of them?
Fair point. I'd say the frustration comes more from the double-talk of "look how inclusive our workplace culture is: everyone eats together in the cafeteria!" The company admitting "we don't have any norms around lunch; everyone is on their own" would not be an objectively better experience, but at least would be honest.
Another option would be to have more official team, group, or project-based lunches, rather than a free-for-all, where specific members of a team privately invite other specific members of a team.
I don't mean to turn this into a rant, just adding a data point :)
This is my experience exactly. I'm sure at a certain company size it might help form connections, but at my larger company people arrange into cliques. It's like the high school cafeteria all over again.
I've switched to eating at my desk, not because I don't want to be social, but because it's less painful than being rejected by the cliques.
TLDR:
> We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve racial equality – that’s what anti-discrimination laws are for. We don’t trust the free market to necessarily preserve worker safety – that’s what OSHA and related regulations are for. [...] Whenever we think something is important, we regulate the hell out of it, rights-of-private-companies to-set-their-own-policies be damned. But free speech? If you don’t trust the free market to sort it out, the only possible explanation is that you just don’t understand the literal text of the First Amendment.
What would be really interesting is putting a similar smart AI on the tanks, which could make decisions like shooting at the highest concentration of zerglings instead of the closest one, or holding its fire if one lone zergling is in range, but a clump of them is about to enter range.
Human players already do both optimizations with widow mines, which are a unit that takes several seconds to prepare its shot so it's feasible to retarget. It's not feasible for humans to do this with tanks though as they fire immediately and automatically.
You could even see counterevolution as two AI algorithms become better at predicting what the other will do.