> If you want fallout then you want an air burst to the West and let the Easterly winds spread the fallout.
This might be true, but I've heard speculation that a surface burst would produce more fallout. Their reasoning is that fallout from an air burst would have considerably less dirt or debris so it would (supposedly) remain airborne for a longer period of time. On the other hand, a surface burst would darn near vaporize anything in the blast radius, and all that newly created radioactive debris would fall much quicker.
My sources could be incorrect, so if you've got something that indicates otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. :-)
Yes, but I think it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts.
Apple already has access to all the metrics that Facebook would be interested in. It seems to me like this is a set-up for Apple to force FB to buy the data directly from them.
> it would be a bit naïve to think that Apple is doing so out of the kindness of their hearts
Good. If they were doing it out of charity, a bit profit pressure, shareholder activism or change in management and the move is reversed. Being grounded in sound business logic and self-interest makes me trust it.
I never meant to imply that I thought Apple's (possible) intent was a good thing.
I just think that a significant number of people will see what they're doing and thing "Oh, they're looking out for me." I think it's best to be skeptical of any company's motives, whether their current business decisions seem to help their users or not.
But Apple isn't selling any of that data (which is really just 'downloaded apps' - they don't have the web browsing habits that FB and GOOG have). Their financial interest here is selling privacy with the price being the ongoing commitment to buy Apple products.
Perhaps, but who is to say that they don't have plans to branch out into that business?
It's possible that they have no intent to do so, but a corporation's primary interest is making profit. And what would be a simple, yet significant, source of new revenue? Selling user data.
> The consequence of not pushing back has done irreparable harm to this country...
Have you watched mainstream news sources over the last 4 or 5 years? Everything that Trump has done (for better or worse) has been met with constant pushback and criticism.
Even when he does something that everyone should see as a good thing (like multiple Middle-East peace deals), they find something to criticize about.
It could be a direct application of Cunningham's law: "The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."
In other words, a curiosity that begs to be proven wrong. We have a saying over here.. "A fool throws a pebble in a pond, and ten wise men can't recover it".
Yes, it's a common approach to trick people into believing things:
1. Open a public "bet" or similar
2. Make it so that you can always wiggle yourself out of the bet (on nitpicking and legalese)
3. If someone challenges you wiggle yourself out hope that person sues you and then use nitpicking and legalese to win the court case about that proof of you being wrong not being applicable for the bet
4. Then claim that the court agreed with you that you have right with your bet (which isn't what the court case was about but people don't know and sometime don't (want to) understand).
There had been some case of this pattern in Germany wrt. to (I think) vaccines and autism. If I remember correctly (I might not) their trick was to require a single scientific paper formulated in a way so that if you paper has other papers it refers to it's no longer eligible for that bet and in turn to win the bet you would have to do multiple large case studies from scratch in cram them into one massive paper covering multiple topics and the joint conclusion. I.e. it's not very feasible.
Didn't go through the CS program as they announced it a month after I finished my Bachelor in Software Development but I thought it was a pretty good program. Definitely planning on going back for a Master's when the time is right.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't be surprised if it earned him brownie points from fervent Trump supporters. It may even get him re-elected by those supporters, assuming he isn't indicted...
Ah I didn't know that he's already currently under indictment. Today I learned...
But yes, if he has something that he can point to when re-election time comes around and say "Look, I tried to help Trump out" then it will probably guarantee him votes.
I'm a Texas resident and didn't know he had already been indicted. But I tend to vote Libertarian for local and state positions so I didn't really look too much into his background.
The DEA has cracked down tremendously on healthcare providers that over-prescribe opioids, though. Granted I'm sure there are many who still prescribe them like crazy, but it seems like active measures are being taken to curb it.
That's unfortunate. I've always wanted backup in case I really need it. Pity that we policy society by its least capable but I understand why it's necessary.
I play only anonymous games not rated in lichess.org as. I like that it takes virtually one second to find an opponent match in my time control (5m+0).
My play level is around 1800-1900 FIDE (last Classic game played some 10 years ago though), and it is true that I win a lot more than I lose (so I guess that the crowd in Anonymous mode must be somewhere 1400-1900 FIDE), but I still enjoy the games. You can tell by the moves that opponents are more often than not club-level players, and I like not having any idea of what level my opponent has, so I focus on what happens on the board.
What I do not like is that, at least in anonymous mode, some players abandon the game without resigning, sometimes just a few moves still in the opening if they get a slightly worse position. Also for some reason some players play deliberately bad in the opening. Maybe they like the idea of a comeback, but I don't like it when it happens.
>and I like not having any idea of what level my opponent has, so I focus on what happens on the board.
You might like lichess's 'zen mode' in non-anonymous play, which hides everything except the board (inc. opponent name and rating) while you are playing.
This might be true, but I've heard speculation that a surface burst would produce more fallout. Their reasoning is that fallout from an air burst would have considerably less dirt or debris so it would (supposedly) remain airborne for a longer period of time. On the other hand, a surface burst would darn near vaporize anything in the blast radius, and all that newly created radioactive debris would fall much quicker.
My sources could be incorrect, so if you've got something that indicates otherwise I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. :-)