HN user
Due to journo's lazyness headline became misleading: in Belarus votes are not really counted anymore. Like literally, numbers are taken out of thin air. So it's not like "referendum approves" anything - it's Lukashenka decides
Headline is misleading, and should be corrected. Not being American I went to look for the context, and the issue is about selection of books for educational system. Not about banning. Whether it is a successful way to shape better students is a interesting question to discuss. But fact is that all taxpayer-funded education all over the world includes selection of books for pupils.
For starters, let's read as written: I didn't say beautuful. Second: ok, replace ads with landscaping. One note though: ads pay for themselves, will it work with landscaping?
Telling "lure you attention" is just a way to frame it. There are plenty of evidence that visual monotony has negative effect on mind, and FWIW in most modern urban environments (blocky, and painfully uniform) ads often do a little bit of favor by providing variance. I've been to places where street ads are heavily regulated to the point it's noticable that there are less billboards and they are more plain. Unless those are full of historical baroque, gothic/art nouveau buildings it absolutely doesn't make it more attractive (I support restricting ads in historical towns).
As for claim about accidents: how about murals, decorative lights on houses, big brightly lit windows?
I doubt there was a global women poll on this issue. And strongly suspect even if existed it wouldn't show that majority of women even care. You are welcome to change my mind
These are all essentially browser ads, it's just not your browser.
Your stance looks self-contradictory. An introduced change either brings enhancement, or not. In the latter case you wouldn't expect anybody to be excited. It means one only gets dopamine boost when getting closer to a goal set, i.e. the feedback works absolutely right. If after a bunch of such changes one arrives at "barely working" it indicates poorly defined goal, and/or lack of underlying knowledge. And has nothing to do with length of compilation. Actually, that's what we can expect from beginners, right? With quicker feedback they, most likely, will have a chance to absorb knowledge quicker.
It's really easy to avoid intrusive ads these days: don't waste any time on TV, sign out of social platforms, use Brave, or any browser with adblocking - you're 99% done with it. As for more subtle kinds of advertising, banning it would require killing media, publishing, entertainment, and even large swaths of education.
Marketing texts happen to be misleading more often than not. But this exact excerpt you cited looks innocent to me. "Significantly" is subjective, of course, but other than that it's correct.
When you criticize you have to concentrate on what you see as wrong (i.e. weakest points) unless you plan to write a full review of review, so "cherrypicking" sounds rather unwarranted here.
I found that between "I already have it digital", and "I will have it digital once I get to a scanner with a paper-feeder" the distance is too big to my liking. Also it's easier to name/annotate my handwriting (to make it searcheable) right after I finished scribing, then to sort out a whole notebook later. That said, I can imagine a paper-fed scanner to be well enough solution for many people, who already have an easy access to it.
- Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
- Then don't do this.
Web browsing on e-ink is widely known to be barely usable, and not what e-readers are made to do. So usage of "even" word is hard to explain here really.
At least in terms of law as it's applied it's definitely not true. Either your sources are not correct, or "circumvention" is described very differently in other places.
In 90s in my country it was a norm to buy potatoes directly from farmers. Many would find it funny that in richer places people pay more buying it washed, and sorted. However, as economical circumstances enhanced majority of urban dwellers started to pay more for washed, and sorted (and often imported, because you can't guarantee high quality of yield in any given year, at any given place) potatoes. You still can buy directly if you like, but nowadays it's mostly for students, and unsupported seniors. I don't know, maybe there's some sort of cartel conspiracy in US food trade, but consumers paying more for intermediary services is universal phenomenon. Likely after reaching some economical threshold, it becomes easier to spend for a bit of free time, and comfort.
On language you may be right. On currency, it's complicated. In economically unstable countries people generally prefer to count in USD, or EUR, especially if it's something which has to be paid across borders.
Elephant in the room: Sayid. It's made for Emacs, and it's so powerful, you may want to switch to Emacs just because of it.
No contradiction here: being owner of a status symbol is enjoyable experience with very rare exceptions.
His statements make a lot of sense: the first language learned often has a profound effect on programming habits. That's why proverbs like "one can program in COBOL in any language" appeared.
I think it's a wrong kind of goal (or at least wrongly-worded). Trying to consume all interesting content will leave you with no time to use acquired knowledge, and overloaded mind won't be able to produce anything on top of it. Also, as other commenters said the amount of information constantly grows disproportinally faster than you can read.
That said if you want to increase your ability to get more X-related data through your brain, you have to reduce consumption of non-X-related data - usually the first candidates to sequester are social platforms, and news websites.
The PSAP can either get GPS or have the phone pinged to get it.
Could you elaborate? Get GPS how?
Fellow former commie country citizen here. The limited value of banknotes made many black market operations barter-based in Soviet block, but I think if you see "money" in wider terms (i.e. as resources) that full-stop statement will hold true.
You statement stands on the assumption that rationing in itself has no price to pay, which is definitely not true. Rationing is complex, and expensive activity, even if you take the easiest form (e.g. 1 liter to every citizen). Also, rationing which takes into account differences of needs is even more hard, and more often than not is close to impossible. Without it rationing is inherently unfair, and may lead to more strain in society. Finally, it does breed black market, and corruption. All in all, there's no sense in it for a mild, and days-term shortage of something which is not drinking water.
We can start from the fact that unlike USSR's, US gov't didn't bother itself with production of toilet paper. But by some magic it was available in the States, almost as if some invisible hand...
Claiming that bad economy stats can vindicate failures of a particular economic system is putting the argument upside down.
USSR as a state wasn't poor anyway: it possessed huge deposits of mineral resources, vast cheap, and controlled workforce which wasn't allowed to strike, or even negotiate - so gov't could offset the need to increase QoL for workers for almost indefinite time. It apparently was quite enough to successfully wage a number of proxy wars around the world against mightiest of enemies, support dozens of allied regimes with money, material, and resources.
Unlike 99.999% of posters who praise free Soviet perks, I really lived in USSR in 80s, and can say life was quite hard. Things like healthcare were indeed free. They were also close to useless due to crumbling equipment, impossibility to get sufficient up-to-date information from outside of SU for continuous education of MDs (did anyone mention free education?), constant "defitsit" of medicines (actually it was almost total, everything was hard to buy starting from toilet paper).
If to speak specifically about computers we weren't forbidden from having PCs indeed, but it was almost impossible to buy one for many reasons, already mentioned defitsit being probably the most important, but also let's not forget the SU was lagging behind the West technologically, and had troubles fulfilling much more basic demands than computers. Most privately-owned computer hardware were self-made in 80s in USSR, and - I'm not kidding - you had at times to deal with very shadowy guys to buy necessary electronic parts. It's definitely easier to buy cocaine in today's US.
As for original research in the USSR it was buried by central-planned socialist system which never sufficiently rewards risk-taking (and there's no riskless innovations) so no matter how cool is your idea in theory it was always easier for everyone - from engineers to gov't ministers - to just copy Western examples (USSR didn't pay royalties anyway). Exceptions were only in military field, and in situations when USSR's industry was simply unable to copy.
Companies opposing to NN paid for astroturfing campaign. While proponents based their marketing on fear-mongering ("The internet is dying" - NYT, "Death of the internet" - CNBC). Would be interesting to measure which was more efficient in terms of mobilizing voters, but worth keeping in mind that it's tangential to the discussion about NN's virtues, and deficiencies
it's about being functional then why has Scala got more users?
Scala world is not that functional if you measure it by real-life usage at least. Most of Scala code I've seen was mostly OOP sprinkled with functional tricks.
And can you really define where this beyond lies? You know, emergencies costs variance is huge, and home ownership too.
Also, "piling" money in a bank account doesn't remove money from economy.
I don't think VSCode is ahead of Emacs on some objective scale. I tried to re-create my Emacs configuration with it and found it impossible. Also VSC appeared to be notably slower when tuned closer to my needs. At the end of the day there are always users who delighted by innumerable choices of configuration possibilities, and those who believe it's unnecessary cognitive load. Emacs being DIY kit appeals to the former, while VSC is built like a browser with rich plugin system, it's in between but closer to the latter. I'm sure VSC does and will have larger audience, but only better Emacs can unseat Emacs on its side of the spectrum.
Btw the effects of MS funding can be overvalued - e.g. MsTeams is among the worst IMs in the existence.
Well, we all can be idiots with various things. However, the problem you mention is real: ratings can be very skewed just because non-target audience may come and try something they don't need/understand. You can't solve it by just letting to delete ratings though - it's too easy to abuse.
I agree that self-restraint in expressing opinions can prevent unnecessary stirring of emotions, but your comment's tone contradicts to this noble idea: it stirs emotions by using meaninglessly overloaded words like "poisonous noise", and vague warnings ("creates far more problems than it solves") which being contextually undefined just sounds patronizing.