The most important thing I've learned from discussions around this conflict is that about 95% of the chucklefucks involved are not equipped to discuss it and should shut the fuck up, myself included
No, it's not, it's referring to e.g. the cashier scanning their personal mobile app rewards account when checking out people that don't have one, accumulating tons of points in the app
Depictions of autism in media very rarely focus on anything other than what's perceived as the upsides.
Like all other forms of entertainment and marketing, it's not realistic, it's designed to present something appealing to a mass audience.
[...] the question is ambiguous. There is no right or wrong if there are different conflicting rules. The only ones who claim that there is one rule are the ones which are wrong!
As youngsters, math students are drilled in a particular
convention for the "order of operations," which dictates the order thus:
parentheses, exponents, multiplication and division (to be treated
on equal footing, with ties broken by working from left to right), and
addition and subtraction (likewise of equal priority, with ties similarly
broken). Strict adherence to this elementary PEMDAS convention, I argued,
leads to only one answer: 16.
Nonetheless, many readers (including my editor), equally adherent to what
they regarded as the standard order of operations, strenuously insisted
the right answer was 1. What was going on? After reading through the
many comments on the article, I realized most of these respondents were
using a different (and more sophisticated) convention than the elementary
PEMDAS convention I had described in the article.
In this more sophisticated convention, which is often used in
algebra, implicit multiplication is given higher priority than explicit
multiplication or explicit division, in which those operations are written
explicitly with symbols like x * / or ÷. Under this more sophisticated
convention, the implicit multiplication in 2(2 + 2) is given higher
priority than the explicit division in 8÷2(2 + 2). In other words,
2(2+2) should be evaluated first. Doing so yields 8÷2(2 + 2) = 8÷8 = 1.
By the same rule, many commenters argued that the expression 8 ÷ 2(4)
was not synonymous with 8÷2x4, because the parentheses demanded immediate
resolution, thus giving 8÷8 = 1 again.
This convention is very reasonable, and I agree that the answer is 1
if we adhere to it. But it is not universally adopted.
I would ask whether you realize you're on a linux community, but you referred to a man page as a wiki article so you are clearly lost.
The first paragraph past the link is a summary of the function of the program.
fstrim is used on a mounted filesystem to discard (or "trim") blocks which are not in use by the filesystem. This is useful for solid-state drives (SSDs) and thinly-provisioned storage.
For every single-family home a hedge fund owns over a certain limit each year, it would be subject to a tax penalty, the revenues from which would be used for down payment assistance programs for those seeking to buy their first home from a hedge fund.
Sounds like even if this gets passed, whatever penalties get assessed are just going right back to the hedge funds anyway? And it's a 10-year plan... Kinda sounds like a whole lotta nothing. Disappointing.
Don't get me wrong, it's an important advancement in semiconductor technology if the claims they're making hold up. But it's grown on silicon wafers. "Post-silicon chips" feels somewhat misleading here
There are already plenty of companies that sell managed data removal like this, Mozilla claims to be doing it better and perhaps they are incrementally more trustworthy than the smaller no name ones
Honestly, depending on the particulars of how that type of thing fits into the bigger picture, that could unironically be good?
Physical protests are the most visible form of protest currently, but any way for immunocompromised people and others for whom it's not safe to be out in the crowd to still contribute is probably a good thing.
And I'm sure the internet is clever enough to come up with a way to amplify those voices effectively eventually.