Why are GA aircraft so expensive? A C172 seems much simpler mechanically than a car. I can see that the price would be driven up by low volume and probably a much stricter QA/inspection process... Is that it, or am I missing something?
> We wrote Google to ask the reason for this sudden move and they responded that AdNauseam had breached the Web Store’s terms of service, stating that “An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users…”
Is there some evidence that changing the terminology this way has an effect -- say an increase in prosecutions or safer driving habits? I was surprised to come to the end of the article without anything about this one way or the other.
That's what a "false positive" is but Wikipedia also has a separate article on "false positive rate", which gives the formula
FP / (FP + TN)
Where FP is number of false positives, and TN is number of true negatives. So it's a third option:
- Out of 1000 actually negative samples, 50 were tested as positive.
So in the case of 1000 samples, 949 correctly testing as negative, 50 incorrectly testing as positive, and 1 correctly testing as positive, the false positive rate is 50 / 999.
It's describing the dynamics in the (non-inertial) reference frame of the satellite (the reference frame in which the astronauts can be described as "floating around"). In this reference frame, the centrifugal force balances the gravitational force, leading to zero net acceleration.
I don't know much about how most unions work, but at least TV & movie actors and writers, classical musicians, and professional athletes have unions that work as task_queue describes. It's hard for me to imagine a programmer's union that didn't work this way getting off the ground.
I think the point of code signing is to ensure that the program was really written by Dropbox, so _if_ you trust Dropbox you should trust the program. That trust should definitely include both Dropbox's good intentions and their competency to prevent their payload system from being subverted.
I'm surprised you can sign an executable, then modify it while preserving the validity of the signature, as I always though this is exactly what code signing is meant to prevent. Can anyone who knows more about this than me (a low bar!) explain whether this is a flaw in the signing mechanism or is actually okay?
The Priceonomics article's main point is that raising speed limits doesn't (much) raise actual speed, so it's not inconsistent with papers (like the one you linked) that show that increased speed causes more and worse accidents.
This is consistent with most drivers behaving like _archon_ (and like me). For example, if every driver thinks she can safely drive 90 mph, but 80%, like _archon_ and me, stay below 10 over the limit out of fear of police, while 20% drive as fast as they like, then raising the limit from 60 to 70 will have no effect on the 85th percentile.
The article seems to quietly conflate the fastest 15% of drivers ignoring the limit with "most drivers" ignoring the limit. Which is odd. However, even under the _archon_ model, increasing the limit would lead to a reduction in speed variance.
What is he misunderstanding? There's nothing in the post mentioning copyright or suggesting the author thinks he has a legal case. He just thinks New Relic are being jerks.
Defense job creation is appealing because it's an easy way to use federal money for local benefit. If you want to fix bridges or something, you have to deal with people saying it's your state's or city's responsibility, but everyone agrees that defense is the feds' job.
The article blithely describes the "best" strategy, without defining "best." I believe the strategy is only best in the sense of giving the highest probability of ending up with the best candidate--so the second best candidate is considered as bad as the worst.