> Although I think it should be private neighborhood organizations to prevent this
How? Here's a way for me to speculate in this:
- Buy properties around the edge of said private neighborhood, set up all kinds of highly offensive things all surrounding the neighbourhood.
- Buy up properties in said neighbourhood as the price drops until I can get effective control of said organization.
- Remove the aforementioned offensive things and wait for property prices to rice again.
> All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path.
Which impacts policing needs, fire services, traffic, public transport, garbage collections, postal services, and many others. It is also likely to have indirect effects on the local housing market, and through that an effect on local schools, hospitals and others.
There's no such thing as just a couple of office buildings when it comes to urban planning.
Traffic impacts that are created by increasing occupancy faster than new infrastructure can be built have adverse impacts on everyone using the transport infrastructure just like a polluting industry has an adverse impact on the area (also, it has a pollution impact, whether or not infrastructure is adequate, but that's probably generally not as big of a concern.) So, scale can make new office space a noxious impact, and the article seems to clearly indicate that a preexisting overall scale limit was applied and Google, who had asked for most of it, got far less, and LinkedIn got the lion's share.
I'm glad Greenwald called then put for using the term "boyfriend" for his 10-year old spouse. Something didn't sit well with me about that term, but I couldn't have vocalized it. It seems meant to evoke sexual connotations, when they played no part in the story.
"After two years of living together, they became common-law husbands."
David Miranda: "I never met anyone like Glenn — he's my husband and I don't know where either of us would be without each other."
Greenwald: "They [the goons who detained Miranda at Heathrow airport] humanized the story, and they gave a platform for my charming and admirable husband to speak out."
Regardless of whether they are technically, legally married according to a particular definition, they consider themselves to have been married for 10+ years, and actually do seem to have some legal basis for that view.
BTW, I can think of other minority populations that historically have been named by the majority with diminutive words -- language that intuitively sees that population as less legitimate. Perhaps a good rule of thumb is to call people what they want to be called, and default to the respectful choice if we don't know.
I'm sorry, but doesn't this completely ignore the fact that the state has not sanctioned partnerships between same-sex couples and codified that relationship universally? And where those partnerships are sanctioned, it has only happened recently?
And doesn't this ignore that a partnership lasting ten years between adults intrinsically has more gravitas than the 'boyfriend' moniker implies?
I don't make my living writing, but I can easily think of a word that better represents that relationship. Someone who professes to be a professional writer, but can't do that either shouldn't be writing, or has an underlying agenda they are trying to fulfill by using what is obviously the wrong word for what is being described.
That may be what the API requires, but is it actually implemented as a physical move/copy of memory? It sounds like they can just make the array _appear_ to be cleared, while keeping it in place in memory.
Couldn't tell if the writer was being subtlely ironic about the origin of the term poop deck, but presumably it's some kind of play on the nautical phrase "poop deck". The latter term originates from "la poupe", which is the French word for "stern".
I think you're just misunderstanding. He is not talking about the origin of the word, "poop deck" in normal English vernacular. He is referring to why these Cardists call worn out decks, "poop decks": because the video referencing the "poop deck" was shot in a bathroom with his bathroom deck he keeps in there
You realize that in most US states, software engineers can now sit for a PE license in software engineering, right? This has been possible in a few states since 2012, when the NCEES started offering the PE license exam in software engineering.
This is the same license that electrical, mechanical, structural engineers get, with the same initial Fundamentals of Engineering exam followed by the subject matter (P&P) exam (usually after verification of a certain amount of experience).
And, if they're Americans, they'll be taking the exam, as opposed to sitting for it, or writing it. (After all, professors or other entities write exams. The whole point is that the students didn't write it, or else they'd know all the answers, now wouldn't they?)
OK, you're making 2 different claims. The first claim is that Bitoiners refuse to learn from history. But the second claim is that crises are required for revolutionary change (history says, I presume). So how are Bitcoiners refusing to learn from history? By trying in the first place? Or by failing to manufacture a crisis?
And really, linking to the wikipedia page of tulip mania, as if we haven't heard that trope 10,000 times?
Bodes well for Rust as a server language. No GC, and almost as pleasant to write as a high level language. And with memory safety and a compiler that catches errors like crazy.
Yes. The majority of the energy is spent maintaining the network's security. Once that security has been obtained, additional transaction volume -- assuming it's within the network's constraints -- will add little to no additional cost.
To expand, Bitcoin's security is maintained by the miners, who also expend the majority of the network's energy. Transaction volume for the most part is borne by all the network's full nodes, which use relatively little energy.
Miners don't choose whether to mine based on whether the network is secure. They mine if it will be profitable to mine.
So we can expect the total cost of mining to be approximately equal to the total block rewards plus transaction fees. The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more valuable those rewards will be, and the more money will be spent on mining.
Some percentage of the mining cost will go to energy, and the rest to hardware. So it's possible to estimate the energy cost of mining at various price levels and times (since block rewards decrease over time).
Ignoring transaction fees, it's actually not terrible. I figured out a while back that it would be something like several gigawatts, if Bitcoin became a trillion-dollar currency in twenty years. But if transaction fees become significant it could get a lot worse. (Luckily there's some work in progress that could increase scalability enough to keep the fees low.)
All they wanted to build was a couple of office building and bike path.