Re: They actually believe the money exists!
This is a myth. Billionaires frequently liquidate enormous sums with no difficulty.
98 posts • joined 6 Nov 2013
"Though the game starts off with NPC quest-givers fully voiced, this declines over time to the point that side quests just have some text."
That seems like a pretty cynical design decision to lure players in with a bait and switch.
The blowing up graphics cards ended up being due to poor manufacturing I believe though.
I don't think that should be a get-out for a company as profitable as Apple though, at least when it comes to security bugs.
They could spend $100m to build an amazing security team that does nothing but handle bug bounties and *still* have made $105bn in profit. Hell, spend $1bn and make it $104bn in profit.
The resources they have access to are utterly mind-boggling and it's shameful they don't care enough about security to use it.
There's a lot of people confidently spouting complete bollocks on here today. Your mask isn't there to catch COVID particles directly. If it did, you wouldn't be able to breathe, as oxygen molecules are several hundred times larger.
The masks prevent you spraying water droplets everywhere, which are a vehicle for transmission because those droplets can contain the virus. This is basic, basic stuff.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but you can't just sue for the fun of it. You sue to make amends for some sort of loss that you've suffered.
If Trump says he was cheated of the Presidency, Joe Bloggs can't sue him for that. If Trump says Joe Bloggs filed fake ballots to make him lose the presidency, then that would be a reputational loss that you've suffered, and perhaps you might have a case.
If you wanted to read up, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort is probably what you're looking for.
Look out, the soCiALisM is coming to get you!
The far simpler explanation is nVidia care about maintaining their multi-decade customer base of video gamers and don't want them to switch to a competitor or to a next gen console in case they don't come back.
You're on a really sticky wicket here. Only 14% of child marriages in the US are between people of similar ages.
Between 2000 and 2015, over 200,000 minors were legally married in the United States, or roughly six children per thousand. The vast majority of child marriages in the U.S. were between a minor girl and an adult man. Most minors married were girls. In many cases, minors in the U.S. may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent, which is 16 to 18 for most states. In some states minors cannot legally divorce, leave their spouse, or enter a shelter to escape abuse.
Unchained At Last, the only non profit advocacy group dedicated to ending child marriage in the United States, found that only 14% of the child marriages conducted from 2000 to 2010 were between two children marrying each other. In most cases, child marriages are between a minor and an adult. In terms of spousal age, the majority of those surveyed, about 60%, reported being 18–20 years old. Less than 3% reported being over 29 years of age. In over 400 cases, the adult was aged over 40. And in 31 cases, they were over 60.
According to data compiled by Anjali Tsui, Dan Nolan, and Chris Amico, who looked at almost 200,000 cases of child marriage from 2000-2015:
67% of the children were aged 17.
29% of the children were aged 16.
4% of the children were aged 15.
<1% of the children were aged 14 and under.
There were 51 cases of 13-year-olds getting married, and 6 cases of 12-year-olds getting married.
Extreme examples include a case in 2010 in Idaho, where a 65-year-old man married a 17-year-old girl. In Alabama, a 74-year-old man married a 14-year-old girl, though the state has since raised their minimum age to 16. According to Unchained At Last, the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25, and 31, respectively, in 2001. The youngest boy to marry was an 11-year-old, who married a 27-year-old woman in Tennessee in 2006.
You're really bad at reading comprehension. The exploit was developed on Linux. And the page specifically says it's not designed to test whether your machine is vulnerable:
"It was developed and optimized for Chrome 88 running on an Intel® Core™ i7-6500U processor on Linux. While it was confirmed to work on other CPUs (different vendor and/or generation), operating systems and Chromium flavors, you might have to adjust the configuration and it might work less reliably (or not at all). Note that the goal of this proof of concept is to demonstrate the feasibility of a web-based Spectre exploit. It is not a test to see if your device is vulnerable or not."
This is because there are requirements in the withdrawal agreement for both parties to negotiate to reach an agreement in good faith.
Although I think it's fair to say that many (most?) European leaders are at the point now where they're resigned to the possibility of a No Deal in the face of all of our crazy negotiating 'tactics', they don't want to risk being the first to walk away.
But don't worry, the end is coming soon, one way or another.
Plenty of people signing that letter are not "rational thinkers" because they've a track record of ignoring the scientific and medical consensus about the validity of transgender people. The letter may have had innocuous wording, but several people signing it are bigots based on their prior behaviour.
"Do you really think things would be different with another party in government?"
Maybe yes? There are plenty of governments around the world who didn't ignore their pandemic preparedness warnings or defund their health and social care services. There are examples of governments who didn't dabble with herd immunity, who followed WHO advice, who locked down early, and had fewer deaths as a result.
Things don't always have to be this shambolically run - we can, and should, aspire to be governed by a competent political class that isn't beholden to financial interests, as some other countries are lucky enough to have.
And while I do share your boredom at constant Brexit mentions, it has been specifically cited as one of the reasons our pandemic plans have not been well executed; because civil service energy was being directed elsewhere for the last two years. Governments have limited bandwidth.
My company is a mostly windows shop for its laptops, and we use various local docker images to provide various things for developers. Our server infrastructure is all Linux, so having WSL means instructions etc. can all be consistent and gives everyone access to a nice linux command line without having to get a mac.
Is this actually a fair conclusion to draw?
"CORAAL contains black speakers who use AAVE to various degrees, and hail from Princeville, a city known for its historic African American population, as well as Rochester, New York, and Washington DC.
VOC is made up of white speakers from Sacramento and Humboldt County, California."
Wouldn't it have been a better comparison to have a dataset made up of white and black speakers who are all either speaking English or all speaking African American Vernacular English?
Since wikipedia says AAVE has its own unique grammar, vocabulary and accents, it's unsurprising that an AI dealing with standard English struggles. The AI may be equally good at recognising black speakers who are using conventional English grammar, vocabulary and accents but this study doesn't seem to allow us to draw a conclusion on that front.
Because they had the opportunity to write existing EU standards into law to give their stated intentions legal force and refused to do so.
People like Jacob Rees-Mogg have already talked about how Indian standards will be good enough.
Their central funding will be cut by 77% by 2020 according to the Financial Times, not normally known for its socialist hand wringing.
Even if your council *actually* hires diversity officers (and you didn't just read a ranty page in the Sun about it), the Conservatives are conducting a full scale ideological assault on local services that should be opposed.
Spending like you describe is a rounding error next to the cuts and is trumpeted by the right wing press to deflect blame from the real cause of all the service closures. Most people are simply unaware of the scale of the cuts from central government and will happily blame local councils - don't fall for it.
I can answer your main question - the level of profit probably is considered satisfactory for a limited risk distributor and shouldn't be considered a mark of commercial failure in any way.
If it's designated as such, then its goods and services will be transfer priced to achieve a low profit margin in that range. The idea being that the small level of profits are in line with the arm's length level of profits a 3rd party company would expect to earn if it had a business with such limited risks. Profits instead accrue to the entity taking all the commercial risk, presumably the US for Dell?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022