HN user
No, both are separate universities, although some universities also have satelite campuses (UDeM (montreal) has multiple).
Edit0: Although UQ is a group of 10 universities that are public, they are not a single entity.
No no he was copy pasting! In the Arret sur image article you can read a whole sentences plagiarized where the author just changed "En effet" to "Toutefois" (for example) at the begining of the quote.
The console market is shrinking and video games are becoming synonymous with PC gaming ( and handhelds I guess but Xbox isn't doing handhelds I think)
More demonstrating intent
Don't give two weeks!
If I may, people write (with pens) slower than than can speak, and thus to take good notes you need to synthesize the material you are being explained. You need to understand what you're writing.
Many people can type as fast/faster than they talk, and when typing it is possible to try and type verbatim what is being said. In this case, there is no understanding. (If you've ever taken a class not all that is said is pertinent and not all that is pertinent is said)
I personally don't revisit my written notes their purpose is uniquely for me to remember/understand what I've written.
Something about it being the banks problem if I owe them a billion
Nope that aint it - look it up its nicely done
If you want many things to land approximately at the same time and place, you need a little bit of play to schedule the arrivals/departures and ensure that you don't have collisions. There is a limit to the amount of aircraft you can safely cram in any amount of space.
Any aircraft you imagine will circle at landing and possibly loiter for minutes while waiting for their turn at using the airspace. (Edit0:See helicopters)
Building an open skyscraper for aircraft to land on will not save you since crafts will lockdown a large part of the building to land/depart safely. And it's not clear to me that it would be profitable.
Then many other problems about energy density and aircraft weight limiting the whole scope of who would possibly use those crafts.
Have a good one!
Edit1: I don't know for you, but my city doesn't have enough parking for cars. I'd be surprised if there were enough parking for EVTOL everywhere - you could very well need to loiter waiting for a spot to open, could need emergency landing if you run out of power, many many un-perfect things that make the card castle fall apart
That's fine sir, you don't need to know everything about a subject to spitball. On you go
Oh it's praise from me, which is why its incredible
I think it's about when you put your phone in your pocket, you have to have it top-up while most people put it top-down, shortening the lenght of the cable and pushing against the connector. In that optic top jack is worse, I believe
Gotcha, just spitballing - my mistake taking it seriously
Good read thanks
Has anyone yet seen one of those phones? Was it a honeypot all along? (A la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Shield)
Edit0: they seem to exist and they have a headphone jack? Incredible.
Do you know how planes land at an airport? They circle waiting for their turn. Why would that problem vanish?
Where have you heard of electric planes being so much more energy efficient than jets?
When is the productivity showing up?
Are the french also misunderstanding Camus?
Important hindsights indeed
Not really, or not better than Wikipedia would. Sometimes it's more pertinent to read than to chat about a thing you might read.
You can also not read it, you do you, but it's enlightening.
Read The society of spectacle by guy debord
If only a small, highly trained and specialised group can use a tool to accomplish a task that can't be accomplished by people not from the group, with or without the tool, it shows to me the proficiency of the people using the tool.
You might've missed my sentence about Terrence Tao?
Maybe I'm dense and haven't understood why you've brought up racing?
Edit0: about killing yourself driving: it highlight that the tool can't be considered "the main contributor"to an achievement if 99,99% of people would not achieve the same outcome but would be likely to die from misuse instead. The person that wrangles it and achieves exceptional outcome is all the more to praise in my book.
It's more to say that F1 drivers are a selected niche that is very good at winning F1 races, representing maybe a 200 to 5000/8,300,000,000 group. I doubt you could win an F1 race at all, respecting the rules. Whether the team deserves praise or not, the drivers show exceptional aptitude to win.
If Terrence Tao finds a novel proof, I believe it's his exceptional aptitude that is to praise, whatever help he used.
Edit0:I would bet that a normal run of the mill random human would be likely to kill themselves racing (with actual intent) an F1 car.
Have a good one!
Could you win an F1 race with the latest winning car against F1 drivers?
A motor race is defined by someone pilotting a motor car no?
We might not think we rightfully won an on foot race driving a car, yeah?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S20462...
See table 1
The toxicity of PFAS to humans has been linked to several health-related issues such as breast cancer,80 infertility,81 vitamin D deficiency,82 increased cholesterol,83 diabetes,84 altered metabolism,85 thyroid toxicity,86 atherosclerosis,87 osteoporosis,88 and cardiovascular diseases.61 Individually, various PFAS and their associated health-related issues are summarised in Table 1.
PRISM?
That essay was published in the 60's