No he's right, it has been used historically to distinguish it from Brittany. What on earth are you talking about regarding imperial legacy? It might be used in a sense to project national potency, but the naming never derived from any imperial motive. It seems to me along with your earlier comment, that you're fixated on self flagellation and a conclusion that just doesn't exist regarding the naming.
Why would I stop using it, it merely describes the group of islands. Geographic ignorance or a chip on your shoulder aren't great motivators for me to stop. Sums up the state of affairs when a perma-offended post like this is the top comment of a really interesting post.
I think you're missing the main reason, competing empires on Britain's doorstep. The British Empire didn't exist in a vacuum. Much like American Imperialism vs. Soviet Russia.
Internal reviews / disclosure mechanisms sound a bit dark to me, the power balance is unhinged. Imagine having a novel idea outside of work, putting some effort in at the weekends, only for your employer to absorb the idea because you naively disclosed it. I can't see any benefit to this system at all for the employee.
Where do you draw the line, is the context as generic as "AI" or "ML", implying that anything AI related, even if not directly comparable to your employers product is owned by the employer?
"If I work on machine learning at my day job, it should be fine to ask for patent rights on any ML related work I do outside of it, but asking for copyright ownership of a video game I make on the side is absurd." – James Liu
I don't understand the reasoning, why is it OK to hand over patent rights for work done outside of contractually defined hours simply if it's the same discipline? Hard to reconcile.
Yeah, I'm just posing what could be done if the law regarding low value theft is immutable, if it can't be changed, something else has to give (I haven't got a clue what).
I'm British so I'm not fully equipped to understand in terms of the state law or effects on the ground, but isn't there plausible deniability for the aggregators that sell goods from individual shop lifters? If the retribution on the individual is negligible, why would they provide evidence against the folk exchanging money for stolen goods, there seems to be no motivating factor to do so.
You could increase punishment for folk buying the goods, but I'm not sure what negative ramifications that might have, e.g. you're second in chain buying a stolen phone.
Maybe I don't understand, but it all seems a bit bonkers to me.
Urea based fertilizers could be harmful to insect life (e.g. it's the active ingredient in "SB Plant Invigorator"). It's also worth noting that the fertilization for mono-crops is detrimental to diverse plant ecologies - native orchid species in the UK have been decimated due to fertilizer run off from agriculture - lots of other species native to low nutrient chalk downland are also effected. The knock on is dramatic decreases in insect populations and diversity, butterflies have been hit especially hard.
In the UK, if you're a contractor caught by IR35 and earn £600 per day, your effective tax rate is 40% if the client allows you to engage using your Ltd. company. If you use an umbrella you'll be even worse off. Net income from the arrangement would be £69,925 based on 190 days billed.
You could use a serial int and just hex-encode when interacting with the CLI? You could then use range queries to match short hashes by zeroing out the remaining bytes and using >=
"and admit their horrific acts" - I don't think any person from the UK/US has engaged in any of this (both educational systems teach about the wrongs of the Empire and American expansionism at the cost of natives AFAIK), but you're prescribing guilt, it's vindictive madness. Does a child born in the UK from African parents inherit this sin?
The generic slice functions would certainly reduce boiler plate, but what I miss in comparison to Rust is the concept of iterators. In Rust if you were to iterate over words in a string you'd get borrowed words, so in practice lots of things are non-allocating (unless you choose to collect / take ownership) - in Go etc. instead of windowing over a string you typically fully allocate the []string result (e.g. strings.Split / strings.Fields). Sub-slicing in Go can be used to make your own iterators, but the ergonomics take a hit.
It is the case everywhere in the UK. Old mill towns in the North, especially the Peak District, have housing made from granite, a lot of these were built during the height of the industrial revolution, they're absolute tanks compared to modern flat packs.
Outside of mechanical damage and over fishing, it's hard to know what could help, you can't really adjust ocean conditions, it's just too vast - for example something fundamental in relation to temperature and water acidity has changed meaning you can't just replant, it'd just suffer the same fate. It kind of implies to save the oceans climate change needs to be improved globally.
I can sympathize with the tone. I recently attempted to move to the latest `tokio-postgres` as the old synchronous version is no longer supported (the new synchronous version uses Tokio under the hood which plays havoc if you use with actix-web [two different executors]), the problem is I'm using it with CockroachDB which effectively requires transaction retries (for savepoints). I've yet to produce a ergonomic tx::retry wrapper that doesn't have lifetime issues (for primitives supporting Copy it's all good).
With the asyncification of the Rust ecosystem it does make life difficult. Maybe the Rust async implementation is fundamentally sound, but the user experience for non-trivial cases isn't quite there.
Evolutionists like Dawkins pose that most organisms are in fiercest competition with members of their own species. You and I compete for identical resources: mates, jobs etc.
I could see the opposite of that possibly arising, e.g. doing something irrational like creating a training event every 2 decades, due to belief - but the inverse makes no sense to me, what's the advantage to a society to renewing skills at 20 year cliff-edges vs. continual development? Makes less sense still in the context of Japanese kingdoms, the kingdom choosing to continually propagate skills would win.
The link provided shows that it is due to the religious belief of rebirth, the tradesmen themselves practice their skills continually, so the theory still doesn't map for me. Moreso if we apply Occam's razor: there's no evidence the Japanese practice is for skill transfer yet it's being used to promote that premise for something else.