Re: Wall Street?
The decoupling was necesary because of the imbalances built up over time. Using gold to back a currency has its own problems: just ask Spain.
12172 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Apr 2007
With it being an island, it's not surprisin that the Isle of Man also has a very proud Norse tradition so any kind of Celtic purity was lost over a millennium ago. Same is true for much of coastal Ireland including places like Galway.
A lot of common linguistic ideas are caught up in the 19th century romatincism that created them
There's very little Celtic in modern English, a few words but nothing grammatical or syntactical. It's fairer to say that it's an amalgam of Old English with Norse and Norman French with lots and lots of loan words, mainly latin and greek but also things like turquoise, tea and chutney.
My own experience has been that companies are now much more both to use and contribute financially to open source projects than they were say 10 years ago, assuming they can find a way of getting through the bookkeeping!
I have one project which has received considerable support from all kinds of companies. Not enough to work on it full time, but enough to cover the necessary work. YMMV but some times you jut need to ask.
The problem with FOSS is it is based on a communist belief
Not sure whether you mean FOSS to be perjorative but the origins of open source software are definitely not communist. IIRC DARPA was a big sponsor of what was to become BSD. Yes, that's the DARPA that's not famed for its communist affiliation, rather the opposite.
Unix, and the BSD became successful because of the academic approach of providing the source code. Okay, at the time, when all the money was in the hardware, charging extra for the software made little sense. But ideologically the idea of sharing code stems from the Enlightenment.
Nuance also provides voice recognition software for Samsung's Android phones. The merge means one fewer independent providers leaving us essentially with Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Given that all of them operate some form of vertical integration (device + software), that's hardly a healthy market.
Deaths due to flu are so common that they are not kept meticulously but the number you're quoting for the US for 2017-2018 looks extremely low, given that the estimate for Germany (a quarter of the population) for that year is 30,000 - 50,000. COVID deaths are still be recorded for patients with the virus, though the actual cause of death could be something else. For example, Denmark is reporting ICU patients with COVID as such even though around a quarter were admitted for other reasons.
Direct comparisons are, however, not possible. Flu can be considered endemic which means deaths are in a population that has been infected and where vulnerable groups are regularly vaccinated.
Both viruses can lead to serious infection and death, particularly among the elderly and steps to mitigate infection, including vaccination, should be taken where possible.
I have, in general, little against vaccine requirements. However, limiting them to COVID-19 does seem arbitrary. There are other highly commuincable and dangerous diseases out there, such as influenza for which a similar requirement would make just as much medical sense. However, it probably makes even more sense to limit such requirements to employees where transmission at work is likely to lead to significant morbidity such as in hospitals and care homes.
…schemas should never change. I think this is a nice idea but it looks like it ignores things like indexes, which could quickly affect performance. I think the general abstraction to views is a good idea but another option for Postgres is to use multiple schemas within the same database.
The spooks and their idiot masters and mistresses are mainly interested in being able to extract metadata* about who people talk to and the contents of their messages. Hence, the mudslinging that only terrorists encrypt their messages using Signal and all conspiracy cranks use Telegram.
* In many situations this is all they need to know who to watch and bug.
Forking is easy enough but you might end up having to run your own server infrastructure, which isn't so easy, even for the minimal overhead that Signal has. Mobilecoin has to be enabled and makes no sense for > 99% of all users – there are simpler, safer alternatives.
You might simply have more success by submitting a PR to remove the "feature".
I think one of the reasons, apart pandering to some vocal users (and for obvious reasons Signal probably has a greater share of these than other platforms), might have been to facilitate support payments from users. Now that it is possible to support the app through the usual channels even this justification is no longer required.
Who knows, maybe it will be quietly removed at some point.
I think the real advantage is that it's another part of the puzzle. The money that has been thrown at SARS-COV2 itself is ludicrous but the tools that have been developed including the sequencing, folding and the analysis of the method of attack and distribution, mean that we're now getting closer to reasonable simulations. This could come in very handy given the size of the list of zoonotic candidates.
In most jurisdictions, ideas are not patentable, only specific implementations. For example, chemical are not patentable but the methods of making them arc. A well-known example of different implementations for the same thing is the "widget™" that Guiness used in cans to create a "draught pour" experience. It was soon imitated by "gadgets" that did the same thing slightly differently.
Then there is the US which lets things like "rounded corners" be patented…
The main difference between BeOS and other OSes due to the use of C++ throughout was the consistent programming model: object orientation and message passing. This meant that lots of things of applications could be implemented directly using system APIs rather having to be written more or less from scratch or using some random toolkit. This did mean that reliable applications could be written quickly. Context switching, essential for multimedia work, was also extremely fast. Work in the kernel was, at least for a while, was restricted to C, but this had as much to do with the way x86 handles privileged code as much as anything else.
That's only part of the story. The NHS, as such, doesn't exist. It refers to a collection of service providers (hospitals, doctors, dentists, etc.) and a central budget. For years, various governments have tried to impose IT from the top but this has usually met with resistance because the "IT" didn't solve problems. Covid 19 has shown just how well various parts can work together when the government doesn't interfere. NICE is another example of letting the professionals decide what's best.
I've only seen things at great distance but any kind of centralised system has to been conceived and delivered as a service to the NHS and not the other way round. However, the usual suspects (consulting agencies, manufacturers, drug companies) have the better lobbying apparatus and usually win out.
if you are not stuck in the relational system thinking, and decided to quickly select the database system, it may be a good choice to go with MongoDB especially if developers decide they don't need a database administrator…
Relation databases are not some kind of ideology but products based on solid mathematical principles. Normalisation, atomicity, referential integrity, etc. solve a lot of problems that are otherwise largely unsolvable. And any database without some kind of administrator is an accident waiting to happen. There may be a market for processing lots of transient data, but it's not a database market.
But you are sort of proving his argument. While you can create all kinds of very reliable parsers with regular expressions, handling edge cases can lead to regular expressions which themselves are impossible to read and, hence, maintain.
Fortunately, we now have better tools for working them, things like regex101.com which help you step through them, but also heuristic tools (fuzzers) that help test them to cover those cases you didn't think of.
It's always been possible to avoid some of the fairly arbitrary sanctions, though this sometimes incurs a high cost. For individuals, money drops usually work pretty well. And there are equivalents for countries: why shouldn't Iran sell North Korea oil? The embargoes and sanctions generally just create black markets, of which the cryptoexchanges are just a new variant.
but at the end of the day their entire business is about processing transactions.
Not really: this is a misconception that the monopolists are keen to see circulate but their main business is preserving their monopoly on transactions and hence margins and mining all that lovely personal data they accrue by it. Alternative payment provides would, theoretically, drive down both fees and energy use.
I'm not sure if you were wrong to buy an electric car, but you do have a valid point about reliability of software. However, thus far, car manufacturers have not been able to avoid liability by promising software updates. And the fact is that cars have been becoming increasingly dependent upon computers for well over a decade. Many vehicles produced since then cannot be serviced without sophisticated computer diagnostics.
For various reasons, and certainly in cities, we're moving from car ownership to mobility as a service. This may mean renting or leasing a vehicle for a long period or booking one when you need it but it's definitely the way things are going: regular cashflow cushions manufacturers from the economic cycle and optimising vehicle use is good for the asset owner but also might help reduce pressure for parking spaces.
What is your point? That Northern Ireland would make negotiations difficult was clear from the start. That negotiations require the agreement of all parties is also clear. It was also clear that both the UK and the EU wished to keep the Good Friday Agreement, which directly affects the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Personally, having seen some of the consequences of the troubles, I'm pleased that both parties decided peace was so important.
It's not bad faith to point this out. The backstop was one UK proposal, which the EU was happy to go along with, the NI protocol another.
It is sympomatic of the naivety of many brexiteers that the inability to resolve a dilemma, which consists of contradictory issues, is somebody else's fault rather than an unreasonable expectation. While this might make for great electioneering, it has proved to be a terrible negotiation strategy. Though, rather than admit this, Lord Frost decided that it was the equally predictable lack of focus in government that led him to resign. Who could have thought that such an overtly political opportunist like Johnson would drop the issue as soon as possible?
But some people never learn, which is why so much faith is being placed in the next potential leader of the Conservative Party…
Actually, the corporate IP lawyers will get very unhappy also if you contribute to BSD without first clearing with them, or use it within products.
The two are distinct and separate issues. The point I was making was that, at the time, HP positively discouraged employees from even looking GPL source. Things did quieten down eventually but it was an example of how the GPL hindered corporate engagement in Linux.
That the success of Linux was because of its licence is a popular misconception. Certainly, the FSF became an effective champion of Linux for a while, but it was a long time before corporations got involved in Linux and that only after the legal department has decided what they could and couldn't do. Even now, with things like the NTFS driver, licensing issues hold Linux back. I remember reading an e-mail in HP which advised employees to avoid GPL code, even when not at work for fear of potential law suits.
And corporations like Google, Amazon but also RedHat, now part of IBM, have shown how easily they can work around the GPL.
It's no coincidence that the GPL has become less and less popular for open source projects for years.
But in the background, the open-source RISC-V chip architecture is stealthily emerging as a viable third architecture…
To be sure, it may be many years until RISC-V emerges as a viable alternative to x86 and Arm…
It is either emerging or will take years to do so… The interview demonstrates little grasp of exactly what RISC-V is, where it might be used, where it is already being used and where it might end up being used. At the moment, for China, RISC-V offers the best opportunity for silicon that is not at the whim of the US government. For nearly everyone else overall price and time to market remain the key criteria.
Indeed, in general there's little difference overall in chip design: chips with the same capabilities build with the same processes will be of a similar size, though support for x86 in hardware will still mean some overhead. But ARM still has an advantage when it comes customisation and creating discrete components on the die for codecs, encryption, etc. Apple's major advantage for apparent improvement is the return to shared memory for CPU/GPU which makes some operations much faster because nothing needs copying. This is great when it works but might also mean that you need more RAM than you thought you would.
Only looking at this from a very long way away but it does look like some kind of failsafe kicked in on a system that has a built-in throttle. You see similar things in exchanges nowadays as a way to handle potentially problematic transactions: sometimes it's better to bring things to halt than let run uncontrolled, especially if they could be the target of some kind of attack.
Moving money between banks, while now very fast, is not friction-free as it's a classic two-stage transaction.
The problem with setting fire to the goat is the obvious risk to public safety. It's also the usual trade-off between one man's "bit of fun" and the tradition the goat represents: don't think too many people would be pleased to see the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square torched every year.
It's also a threat to the national security of Taiwan, a friend and ally of the United States.
So much a friend that America refuses to acknowledge it officially. And, again, no one from the US is in Saudia Arabia telling them not to bomb Yemen, even though the US has for at least twenty years considered Saudia Arabia to source of most islamic terrorism (cf. Nicholas Negroponte's Rebuilding America's Defenses and the weird post-hoc justification for invading Iraq).
Apart from the fact that Intel, along with many of well-known companies, does indeed depend heavily on sales in China, the biggest problem with this virtue-signalling is that it's so selective: if we shouldn't trade with China because of Xinjiang (or should that be Tibet, or Hong Kong?), then shouldn't we also stop trading with Saudia Arabia - because in its own way it's equally as repressive and also heavily involved in a very dirty war in Yemen? What about Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea, where oil companies have, for decades, been polluting and supporting repression? Then there's Russia, where we get most of our gas from. Not forgetting Egypt or Israel (which gets to runs tests that would be illegal in the US). And what about India after Modi flagrantly broke both Indian and international law by rescinding the autonomy of Jamul and Kashmir and putting it under direct control of the national government?
Or how about stopping trade with Texas because of its recent anti-abortion law?
Fake it till you make it is just as true for medical products as it is for any other industry in the US. Theranos is high profile but the practices of Big Pharma are, in their own way, even more shocking and on a far bigger scale, eg. Purdue's approach to opioids, though it was far from alone in this. The lesson is: if your lobby is big enough, all you need to worry about is the size of the fine.