I don’t think it would matter whether it held up in court, because superstars probably had much more power and leverage than concert venues so the venues wanted to keep them happy.
I also don’t really buy the explanation that brown candy would indicate that the facilities weren’t structurally/electrically safe. I think it’s more likely that the band were just a bunch of spoiled jerks.
And how do you decide which sandwich shop to go to when you want a sandwich? You've just answered the question "how does a sandwich shop differentiate itself?"
Yeah, I pretty much disagree with the author when it comes to something like inputing your birthday. For something like hotel stays or airplane tickets, it does make sense to show a full calendar to give a sense of the range between two dates, but for inputing a birthday I'll take the "9 taps" required to fill out the three fields on mobile. I think it's going to end up faster than alternating between tapping to select a field and typing to enter the value.
Maybe it spread from more urban areas to more rural areas, because growing up in the mid and late 90s in a small midwestern town we were pretty much let loose on the streets with our bicycles with no restrictions other than “don’t get into trouble” and a time we needed to be back.
Having bad software or a bad website is very often not an existential threat to companies, but having no software or no website is very often an existential threat.
Might that be simply because you are more interested in the one thing than the other? I can't come up with any objective measure of complexity that could show flexbox as being more complex than multithreading.
> If you aren't comfortable renting your home to random people then don't use AirBNB, plain and simple.
Why? Says who? You're coming up with this strict concept of what AirBnB must be, but I see no reason to agree with you. It's as absurd as saying "if you aren't comfortable giving a ride to a hitchhiker with a rifle on his back and a blood-stained shirt, then don't give a ride to any hitchhiker."
I'm familiar with the diagonal argument, but the version I learned in Discrete Math courses defines the reals as little more than a (potentially infinite) series of digits with a decimal point somewhere, which I thought didn't hold up to much scrutiny. But this stuff is way above my mathematics pay grade. :) I stumbled onto the Wikipedia article "Construction of the real numbers" and I have no clue what is going on.
If you limit yourself to only constructive proofs, do you even get the real numbers? I'm not very clear on the definition of "constructive," but given that almost all real numbers are non-computable (i.e. most likely, the set of all real numbers you have ever encountered outside of computability theory has the same cardinality as the integers), it doesn't feel very constructive to me. I've always found it odd that we learn early on in discrete mathematics about how the cardinality of the reals is larger than that of the integers and rationals, and yet it seems like you'll never deal with anything from this larger set of reals unless you're studying computability.