Not enough. About 1 cup a day (down from 3), but my red bull has gone up by 2 cans of 12 oz, so it's about an even thing. Alcohol, I actually have to slow down my drinking, but I would say about 10 shots a month is a decent average.
I can verify turblety's comment. I've tried multiple times to get Lazarus working on OS X, and the closest I've gotten to getting it working was the IDE to actually show up, but crash trying to get the Hello World example to compile and run.
Ghost/Normal does have a weakness. Dark. There is no combination that doesn't have a weakness, anymore. (It used to be Dark/Ghost, but then GameFreak came out with Fairy type, which is super-effective against Dark.)
As someone who plays pokemon a lot, this reads false. While it's true Electric is a good type because of the only one weakness (Ground attacks) and Ice is cool because it has 4 super advantages (Fly, Dragon, Grass and Ground), it's a terrible type because it also has 4 weaknesses (Fight, Rock, Steel, and Fire).
This analysis just feels wrong. In pure type advantages, sure it's correct. But Pokemon can learn other types of attack besides it's 2 typings! (Infernape, for example, has the typing Fight/Fire. It's weak to Psychic, Water, Flying and Ground. But it has access to moves to get around those weaknesses, meaning that it's typing isn't as bad as this analysis would suggest it is.)
I guess you can say, hmm, that's interesting, but in terms of game play, strategy, and how good a pokemon can be, the typing is usually one of the lesser concerns.
> Which is why I’m having trouble picturing the market for this. How big is the overlapping region in the Venn diagram of “Linux users” and “people who need a hand-holding not-really-a-database”
Well, that's not really the target. It's to get another check unchecked that keeps people from switching from Windows to another platform. For now, yes, I agree with you.
In D.C., the place where I've spent most of my adult career, that is the case. If your recruiter doesn't tell you the salary range, it's because they (75%) honestly don't know themselves. Either because it may be based on experience of the candidate, or because there are multiple roles which you as a candidate could fill and the company doesn't want to throw out numbers to confuse/hide things.
In fact, it's usually the opposite situation here. It's weird to NOT know the salary range, and how much wiggle room there is. (It honestly helps that salary range is usually defined in the proposal for contract companies to the government, and they've already built in profit before they even begin to hire employees.)
I recently interviewed someone for the new company I just started working for. This candidate was recommended by someone already in the company for a position we're trying to fill. The company reached out to their staffing firm, and contacted him through them. So, that's what I mean by D.C. tech companies, they seems to LOVE using recruiters.
Thank you for the article. To actually get to the point, I'm not sure how helpful it is to me. It seems to me like a game: if you're sure you have a strong hand, it makes sense to not disclose your salary. But if you have a weak one, disclosing early/knowing the salary range makes it worthwhile to disclose the range that you're looking for.
The reason why I ask is because in Washington, D.C, at least in tech, it's almost impossible to get a job in this area without going through a recruiter. So how would you go about dealing with them in an unable to avoid situation?
> You know that Obama de facto stopped - or at least severely limited - Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011. There was no outright ban, but the flow of Iraqis slowed significantly.
The comparison barely pasts muster when you consider the circumstances.
First of all, Obama's 'ban' was based on an intelligence report that stated that terrorist had already gotten into the US through the immigration program, and wanted to know why that was the case. They limited, not banned, Iraqis to make sure that the new processes were working. Here, there was a clear and present cause and effect to show why these steps were taken.
Trump's ban is a straight outright ban, based on a list, granted, that was made by the previous administration, but unless I've missed the report/statement/briefing, that honestly doesn't have anything to do with a specific policy or situation, other than keep them out. Otherwise, why would long-standing US green card holders also have to warned not to leave the country for fear of not getting back into the US??
> Would you call it a hateful act as well?
I would call what Obama did sad, both for what he did and the reactions he received, but nobody ever thought he did it because he wanted an entire nation kept out of the country, let alone just a particular reason. (This is all hearsay, but considering what the man has previously stated publicly, lends some truth to this rumour, but apparently this is as legal as they could get to keep Muslims from the Middle East out of the country.)