Sure, but they why kWh/h instead of kW? If you're inclined to measure the quantity of gas in terms of its energy, why not measure its flow in terms of power? (of course kWh/h _is_ power, but why denote it so strangely?)
Why would one presume that the reason has anything to do with computation error rates, rather than something obvious and mundane like "Graviton instances are more profitable"?
> If you talk to Dell/HP/other, they can advise you and sell you large storage appliances. Problem is, the larger appliances will only host 1 or 2 PB. That's nowhere near enough.
This is just incorrect.
If you talk to HPE, they should be quite happy to sell you the my employer's software (Qumulo) alongside their hardware. 10+ PB is definitely supported. (The HPE part is not required)
If you talk to Dell EMC, they will quite happily sell you their competing product, which is also quite capable of scaling beyond 1-2PB.
> Then you can mine the currency and provide them to other players in the game, either by giving it away or selling it.
> “It’s a way to compensate people who really believe in us in the beginning,” Schiermeyer said. “That’s how we’re structuring the blockchain. The people who were first to play it are going to get more than people who are last to play it. So, I mean, there’s definitely a reason to come in.”
So, uh, it's a pyramid scheme, thinly disguised as a game?
"the third-child deterrent appears stronger among wealthier families"
So this has both the most and least effect on families that have little reason to care about needing a bigger car (because they can easily afford it, or they can't afford any car at all, respectively). When you go fishing for a correlation, form a post-hoc hypothesis for its mechanism, and then other data fits that hypothesis poorly, it's a strong sign you've found yourself a red herring. Which is the usual result of failing to properly understand the distinction between correlation and causation.
So, honest question, because I'm genuinely bewildered: why would you bother doing this, when Firefox exists, is perfectly functional, and isn't made by Google?
There are lots of games that run on linux these days. Personally, my wishlist has a deep enough backlog of linux-supporting games that there's very little risk I'll ever be "forced" to dip into the windows-only portion of the list.
For those times when I really just want to play a specific game that's Windows-only, dual-boot works great. I couldn't care less if telemetry tells Microsoft I start my PC every few months to play a few games ;)
I'm pretty skeptical that there are many real cases where eliminating Windows as a primary OS is a matter of "can't" and not "don't care enough to tolerate an occasional minor inconvenience". The latter case gets little sympathy when they complain about Microsoft's bad behavior.
I'm not sure it's as much of a contradiction as you think it is. Noting "It manifests itself in the declining visit and posting frequency on Facebook across many cohorts", I find it entirely plausible that feeding the trolls yielded short term lift in target metrics at the expense of (much harder to measure and correctly attribute) long-term attrition of non-troll users. That hypothesis certainly fits the popular perception that FB is dying/dead. It somewhat fits my personal experience: I fairly aggressively pruned my news feed of any political content, which seems to have kept away the trolling, but the personal content that I wanted has dried up and my feed is now mostly ads and generic "recommended" clickbait. Why bother visiting?
Doable, although annoying to configure correctly. Beneficial if you want to obscure your identity from the second VPN server (i.e. Twitter's, in this case, which ought to be logging connections)
I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. In your example, the painful boots were clearly inadequate, and by the heuristic, it was time to upgrade to the best equipment you could afford ;)
Skiing does make for some examples of a couple weaknesses in the heuristic, though:
First the "best equipment you can afford" part is pretty poorly defined. Suitability of ski equipment is contingent on the skill of the skier and the type of skiing, so you can't just pick the most expensive thing and expect it to be the best for you. Skis are especially nasty in this regard in that the most expensive equipment often makes performance trade-offs that are actively hostile to beginners or use in the wrong conditions.
Additionally, ski equipment is consumable (at least in the hands of an aggressive skiier), which largely invalidates the cost-optimization rationale of the heuristic.
Skiing probably wants a somewhat modified heuristic, along the lines of "Start with the cheapest tool, use it until it wears our or you find an intolerable problem, and then choose a replacement that solves the problems with the previous iteration."