> one scratch on window from some tungsten carbide.
Checks out. Tungsten Carbide and Corundum (sapphire watch crystals, the hardest watch crystal in use) have the same Mohs hardness of 9 and will scratch each other.
And I'd guess that a $300 watch probably doesn't use Corundum but rather mineral glass.
I'm not Kick, but while you're correct that "associated with" would've been better for clarity, no reasonable person would assume that "inversely tied" describes a contractually mandated drop in performance for an increase in pay (my other comment here links to dictionary.com and thesaurus.com, both good references for this discussion). Couple that with the generally accepted usage of 'tied' and the usage by Kick was correct, if perhaps ambiguous to a narrow population.
'Tied' in relational contexts is generally used to describe a correlation, relation, connection, or a consistency between events in the English language. It can—but does not have to—describe a contractual relationship, and it does not generally describe one except in very specific and obvious cases, e.g. what one would expect to be true: "bonuses are tied to performance milestones."
> Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance
No reasonable person would assume that a person's comp structure from Company would be contractually bound to increase as Company's performance decreases. At which point, the interpretation of "tied" would swing towards generally accepted usage, i.e. "there's a potential relationship between these two things."
ameister14 suggested "associated with" would've worked better, and that's true. But "tied" isn't technically wrong.
Touche, wrong word choice ("supplement") on my part.
Taking GP at their word, whatever it was was FDA approved. If the FDA doesn't approve supplements, then whatever GP represented couldn't have been a supplement, which gets back to my original question:
Why is "FDA approved" being treated here as a boogeyman by the parent?
"FDA Approved" isn't a boogeyman term. It means the supplement was in fact reviewed/approved by the FDA, whereas dubious substances come with statements that their claims have not been FDA approved.
a) A broken reference C compiler don't dictate how a different C compiler might act -- in reference to the case which Intel lost.
b) since Google's browser became the defacto standard browser thanks to Edge switching engines, hence the thread. The standard doesn't really matter anymore; Google makes most of them now as a matter of course anyway.
Fascinating. I wonder what the counter-argument would be; that a website isn't software, perhaps? That argument could be sufficiently argued apart by equating manually downloaded/installed software with code that's manually downloaded (GET / host: youtube.com) and run in a browser context.
I'd be curious to see how likely Microsoft would be to follow this approach rather than to just stick to using Blink... as they've already decided to do.
> we offered an opinionated way of managing teams and it turned out not enough people shared our opinion. In hindsight this is pretty obvious since workflows are kinda like opinions in that everyone has one. I think this is why tools like JIRA and Trello are so successful. They let you decide how to manage your workflow.
I can't say I feel qualified to make the sorts of truly inspiring tributes I'm reading so far. I just want it known that one more person appreciates all he's done to motivate people such as myself to look up at the stars and pursue a career chasing them.
Checks out. Tungsten Carbide and Corundum (sapphire watch crystals, the hardest watch crystal in use) have the same Mohs hardness of 9 and will scratch each other.
And I'd guess that a $300 watch probably doesn't use Corundum but rather mineral glass.