I still don't like having explicit conversions everywhere like in rust. Either you're not thinking too hard about it and the explicit conversions are not really doing anything for you, or you are, meaning you need to be reasoning about it every time and justifying why it can never fail and/or injecting error handling. I would be a much happier rust user if index/length types were are i64 and we relegated unsigned types to serialization almost exclusively. I have other gripes for unsigned types btw, those are just my complaints why explicit casts are not a panacea.
Not necessarily. Looking before crossing the street is inversely correlated with getting hit by a truck. Getting trucked is inversely correlated with getting mauled by a lion (most places with wild lions are light on road traffic). Doesn't mean that looking both ways will increase your odds of becoming lion chow though.
I remember from moltbook, all AIs ever talk about is AI haha. I don't know if it's intentional or more that the fact that all the models are presumably system-prompted and post-trained to be cognisant of their AI-ness, so it's already in the context. They probably beat them over the head with the idea that chatbots are friendly and helpful and would never hurt a fly trying to align/safety-ify them, so that could lean into the theme of AIs being trustworthy with autonomy?
I would consider it extremely obscure overall. A large majority of programmers would not be aware of its existence. At the same time there are clearly much less popular languages with articles so it is kindof weird to push to delete. (eg: random scheme implementation w/ no releases in 20 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SISC) I would say that wikipedia broadly favors programming languages as far as notability. Like most nerd/geek things their footprint skews toward the internet, and people who enjoy geek stuff are more likely to be wikipedia admins than the general population.
The American average is actually ~$35,000 apparently. Though that comes from the wedding industry so they probably undercount small ceremonies and have some incentive to juice the numbers besides. I couldn't really find a good clean table that went back further than the 90s, but qualitatively it sounds like spending spiked in the 80s / early 90s and has mostly stayed with inflation since. Personally, even though I could comfortably afford it, the financial aspect of such an expensive affair would completely suck all the joy and life out of my wedding for me.
People are pretty expensive (they're literally worth a lifetime of free labor). 1 slave would've been like 3 complete years income for an average free white southerner to purchase, plus ongoing expenses obviously. So they basically end up in the hands of upper class people who have a steady need for lots of manual labor. Doesn't mean that everyone else around was not benefiting from the economic surplus, or was not supportive of the institution.
1000 people is what they usually do for political polls. I was taught that a sample size of 1000 is sufficient for pretty much any purpose. At some point what becomes more significant is the differences between the poll-answering population and the general population. For eg if you call people at random on the phone, you're biased towards people who are likely to pick up the phone and talk to a pollster (eg retirees are home more often and not busy). Of course nobody is that naive nowadays, but that doesn't mean systemic error is completely eliminated.
100s of millions have definitely been exposed already. The best defence is probably to be a baby so your risk window is minimal. I haven't been able to pull that off personally, so I follow the other recommended piece of advice which is to keep your credit checks permanently frozen with the agencies and only temporarily thaw it for specific usages.
Starcraft 2 has the same overall design. If you disconnected and rejoined in an online match you could watch it scrub through the entire game to get back to the synchronization point (not theoretically necessary I guess, but probably avoids a lot of headaches). 10:1 for simulation to real-time feels pretty on-par with what I remember blizzard could achieve.
If you remember that hotel chain Sonder which went bankrupt last year, they had a zero-local-employees model: no front-desk, outsourced maintenance and housekeeping. I think they made the same mistake. Your typical interaction with the hotel receptionist is extremely formulaic. Many other hotels have replaced the sign-in process at least with a machine. That's most prominent in your mind, so its easy to assume that's where most of the value comes from.
Apparently the distribution of patterns (whorls, arches, loops, etc) varies by ethnicity, but not that much. So for an individual set of prints you can't determine anything reliably. It's not really genetic, rather determined mostly by the blood temperature and flow while you're a fetus, like a animal's precise fur pattern.
Given that 20-90% of people don't receive one across various modern countries, I think we have enough regular data. Otherwise like 80% of Germans would be champion athletes if a no-epidural birth really did that for you.
It seems kind of silly to tout the 5% "not medically necessary" line when 7 times as many were denied for "a reason the insurer never specified". I wouldn't really describe claim denials for reasons like administrative or missing referrals as value neutral either. These are roadblocks controlled by insurers that waste patient and provider time, and reduce access to care.
> To lend credibility to the false figures, Fairfull forged bank documents using PDF-editing software and uploaded them to the data room investors used for due diligence.
Wait, when they're doing due diligence, nobody actually checks anything with the bank? I think it might be harder to fake eligibility for a mortgage than $107 million ARR.
I mean, they claimed to be for browser diversity when it was not them on top lol. Underdogs want the race to tighten up, 85% market leaders want to stay out in front.
Magic the gathering has this problem. You have 2 types of cards, and drawing an imbalanced mixture is pretty detrimental. During play you tend to sort them into 2 piles though. Consequently it's a not uncommon sight to see people manually interweaving their cards after a match, then shuffling. Logically, this is either pointless or cheating depending on the quality of that shuffle, but people do it anyways haha.