This is laughably incorrect. I have purchased multiple high end refrigerators in the past few years and used energy star to determine the opex of them - it influences the high end too.
593 karma · joined February 11, 2013
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/sethherr; my proof: https://keybase.io/sethherr/sigs/iwabyyucRMsPkHeZgo_Eog23YoB5kMrP2JOWItRZV5o ]
Biden was 51.3 to Trump’s 46.8 in 2020.
This was not a landslide. Trump did not get the majority of votes.
He has much less of a “mandate” than Biden did.
This is exactly the gotcha. You paid for a service. The outcome isn’t guaranteed.
> The four-minute barrier was first broken on 6 May 1954 at Oxford University's Iffley Road Track, by British athlete Roger Bannister
> On 21 June 1954, at an international meet at Turku, Finland, Australia's John Landy became the second man, after Bannister, to achieve a sub-four-minute mile.
In 1955 Laszlo Tabori was the third person to break the 4 minute barrier. Then, in 1956, three runners broke the four-minute barrier in a single race.
This matches what I described, multiple people attained it once it was understood to be possible. It was linear up to the 4 minute mark, but the point is that records that used to be impossible are now humdrum once achieved.
I guess I’ve just drunk the koolaid - but also, there has been a lot of work to make things more predictable, e.g. zeitwerk.
But take distance running - prior to 1954, nobody had done a sub 4 minute mile. After that was known to be possible multiple people sub 4 minute miled in the following decade. If you sent a top runner back a hundred years they would be able to run a sub 4 minute mile, even with 1920s equipment - and the world record in 1923 was 4:10
Everything else you listed are right wing conspiracy theories.
You could just check in your code every night. And, vs not having those commits (even without messages) - what could possibly be the downside?
But, you can choose not to branch then?
I’m really confused about the trade offs of version control. I can understand trade offs of branching strategies, but at its most fundamental (snapshots of your code at arbitrary times), I can’t think of any drawbacks?
Somehow future people will figure out how to reuse stuff, but we can’t currently be bothered.
I believe in progress! So we should experiment and figure out how we can improve the current situation.
Seems like maybe all that's different vs. normal HTML is that it doesn't have angle brackets.
> Athletes with asthma/AHR have consistently outperformed their peers, which research suggests is not due to their treatment enhancing sports performance.
Anecdotally, when I lived in Chicago and rode outside in cold air I had asthma like symptoms (and I didn't ride nearly as frequently as olympians do) - which lines up with this quote, also from my original link:
> Inspiring polluted or cold air is considered a significant aetiological factor in some but not all sports.
I think it's possible that it's not just a sham.
> is suggestive that years of endurance training may be a contributory cause.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the original impetus for this variety of security was a prompt like “what are some objectives that support us creating vendor lock in” - that’s how organizations end up with multiple interconnected objectives
> if you aren't able to build TextSecure from source, you probably aren't capable of managing the risks associated with 3rd party sources.
Which is a compelling argument from my perspective. I also think that people who can’t compile code should probably not root their phone.
> The suit references forthcoming research indicating that PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) may leach from HDPE plastic containers into everyday products.
From the article:
> A peer-reviewed study in 2011 found Inhance’s containers leached the toxic compounds into their contents.
This is why people trusting ML rewrites is sad. Obviously this seems less cut and dried if you hallucinate new “facts”
The final paragraph is even more error riddled. Check the actual article content:
> Since 2020, Inhance appears to have repeatedly lied to regulators and customers about whether PFAS leached from its containers, and for several years resisted EPA’s demands to submit its process for review.
If you think reading this rewrite is a good use of time, you’re wrong.
Please don’t post lies that a computer told you because you like them more than journalism.