Solitary doesn't just mean single occupancy cells, it means separation from most human contact.
They could easily have groups of cells where inmates are confined individually but can still have non-physical contact with other prisoners.
And as most of those in solitary aren't raving psychotics (mostly they attacked guards or rival gang members, an issue largely due to prison overcrowding) they could be allowed monitored time in the yard with other prisoners.
Could be a ploy like how many scammers use poor spelling and grammar so that they don't waste their time chasing up people too smart to fall for the scam.
Except it is if you are really concerned about security or have a backbone Oracle don't want to waste time on trying to sell to you.
>I'm guessing that the intersection of "administrative personnel", "willing to carry pagers" and "understand the internals of AWS services" is a very small set
Being a non-engineer doesn't mean they don't know anything about the technology. And they don't need to know the internals, just enough to convey information from the engineers managers to the public.
Plenty of other organizations manage resolving issues while transmitting information about the issue to other stakeholders.
Also, most administrative personnel have far less job opportunities than engineers. If they can get the engineers to carry pagers they can get a PR minion to carry one.
> At the same time, a lot of people never gave G+ a chance, because they felt Google already had too much power. It felt like giving Google the "missing link". At least, that is my experience.
That is how I felt. Once Google started doing things like trying to force people to link their YouTube and Gmail accounts I got off the bandwagon (I now not only don't login to YouTube I block YouTube from setting cookies altogether).
>It's sandboxed and not able to do anything - malicious of not - outside it's restricted environment.
That argument is like the one that Linux is more secure because a malicious program will only have user rights.
Malicious scripts can do plenty of damage inside their restricted environment. There are whole books on how to securely write web apps due to the danger of "sandboxed" malicious JS.
Personally I don't want to be tracked and profiled yet nearly every major website is running multiple tracking and profiling scripts.
>If you could somehow disable all logic from executing in your OS native apps, would you do this by default?
I do disable native apps ability to communicate with the network unless they actually need it.
P.S. I also find that those who take a pure "webapp" approach introduce design flaws into their apps. In Toggl for example when browsing summaries you can't open multiple tasks in detail because instead of using a hyperlink they use JS to fetch and display the task details. Any content link should be able to be opened in a new window/tab.
You are forgetting that Google effectively has two groups of "consumers". Ordinary users who use their products, and companies that advertise using Google's products.
Even if ordinary users can switch to Bing the advertisers can't shift so easily as they aren't concerned about accuracy of search results but about the potential market size.
Large telecom companies ran a fairly effective campaign confusing people about what net neutrality was actually about.
I've heard all kinds of silly things like net neutrality wouldn't allow end-user set QOS. Or that it wouldn't allow ISPs to throttle people who exceed "acceptable use" limits.
As for the proposal in the OP I don't see the issue with it. Plenty of companies make arrangements (usually physical co-location of servers) with ISPs so that certain content doesn't count against users data caps.
That could get abusive if the ISP had a very low data cap but coincidentally services also owned by the ISP were off cap. But in most situations they are just giving you something extra, not taking away as ISPs were doing with targeted throttling.
I think the point was that current hiring practices filter out many autistic people due to the behavioral testing.
Currently autistic people generally have to be good enough at social stuff to pass as "normal" in the interview. The more socially challenged don't get a chance to prove they could do the job.
I know what you mean. I have a friend who is autistic and he is probably about average in intelligence.
That is a bad place to be for someone with autism as the behavioral issues means he has trouble finding work, but he can't get any government support because he isn't disabled enough.
I don't think that is a fair comparison. The 386 was a true CISC design while the ARM2 was RISC. One of the major points of RISC was to reduce silicon complexity by using a less complex design (and shoving the complexity onto software).
Intel could have built an equal or better chip than the ARM2 but they were worrying about servicing the already established market for x86.
P.S. Is it even reasonable to compare MIPS between RISC and CISC designs? A RISC chip has to execute several instructions to do what can be done in one CISC instruction.
I can imagine all the people complaining about how they have been waiting for three hours for an Amazon drone delivery while a hurricane rages on outside.