Your numbers are totally wrong. The fact your own link suggests that bitcoin uses as much electrical energy as Chile should tell you it's not close to the USA. Recheck?
2,688 karma · joined June 6, 2012
I've been poor. You have good as well as bad days. I remember the day I won £75 with £1 on a fruit machine. I also remember the days I'd put £10 in and get nothing. I remember the unexpected bill but they weren't every day, they would be every 6 months so you hadn't accounted for them.
It would be more realistic if it allowed those little moments of triumph, only to snatch it away later.
But, as the article puts it, "suspiciously close". Except, I guess you'd accept .003 as close also. And, from the other side, you have .999, .998 etc. If you accept the range .995 to .005 as "close", that's already 11 values, so around 1 in 90 chance of hitting it at random.
Except, there might be other "suspicious" values. Like, .100, .200 etc. That gives us another 9. And then you could have things like .111, .222 etc.
If you accept around 50 different suspicious values of some sort then there's a 1 in 20 chance of hitting one at random. That doesn't seem so suspicious to me.
Methane is 21x more potent than CO2 over a 100 year period, and 72x over a 20 year period. So, if you're concerned about what's happening now, that's the figure you need to consider.
I do understand this. My father would talk about Protestants as if was synonymous with Scum. It wasn't till my teenage years that I realized the problem with that.
You need to get rid of that shallow thinking and understand that decent and intelligent people can disagree with your personal beliefs. It will make you a better person.
The person in this story wasn't confused and didn't even attempt a defense that Tesla had mislead them.
Global temperatures were not warmer in the past, because there was less energy retained due to lesser amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
> check, test and double check.
Clearly that's not what you want to do, because you want to assume the computer is wrong without evidence as you stated. Testing might provide some evidence.
> could not provide evidence that the software was wrong. But then, how on earth could they?
Well, I suppose they could "check, test and double check." Or is that unreasonable?
But what if I told you that 30% of users who stop watching YouTube go on to use a different media service, even though they could have watched exactly the same content on YouTube. Would you feel comfortable informing these people that they could watch on your site?
There should be a word for people like that...
You probably haven't used it much if you haven't been using `trap`
Imagine you had a graph of earth's temperature and decided to set the y axis at absolute zero. What would that look like? Would it be in any way useful?
The fact is it was barely used until the OSI introduced it as a term at which point it became popular. You seem to have a personal problem with that.
Rejected after they'd made the term popular.
Yes it is. Just because a phrase was used once or twice in some obscure post in the past, doesn't mean that someone can't come up with it independantly.
> a common term back then as well, but I can't find a reference for that now.
Because it wasn't a common term at all. If it was, you'd be able to find thousands of examples of usage, from all over the early web and (especially) Usenet. How many examples do you actually have. Two or three?
And, yes, it halved as a % of the population because the urban population was growing faster than the slave population was growing. That doesn't mean it was shrinking.
This is completely wrong. In the 1800 US census, it recorded 893,602 slaves. By the time of the 1860 census (the last before the Civil War), that had risen to 3.9 million slaves (the 1850 census showed 3.2 million, so it was obviously still rising).
Adding knowledge of a relatively obscure operator (can't remember the last time I needed it in real life) just makes it a trivia test.