> but then set up a website where that button keeps jumping away from your mouse for 20 minutes, while it's showing you uplifting messages why in fact, you should continue with the subscription. Still, only one click
Most laws can be misinterpreted, it doesn't necessarily mean they are useless.
> every group chat has a n-1 group containing everyone except that annoying member. And if you think your chat doesn’t have such a group, oh boy, do I have some bad news for you.
There are more like 2^n - 1 subgroups, i.e. as many subgroups as the there can be. If you think you're safe because you're already part of one subgroup that complain about the people not included in this particular subgroup, I also have some bad news for you.
You are safe anyways by the "sticks and stones" principal. Worrying about what other people think about you, unless they are your immediate family, is a pretty inefficient use of time.
this is great advice for people who want to have no friends.
You should care about what the people you respect think about you, because they are people you hold in high regard. They matter. The key is to dismiss the opinions of people who suck
> unless they are your immediate family
this is a terrible exception. Sometimes your immediate family sucks and you shouldn't care what they think of you (imagine that you're gay and they're all homophobes)
as with most things, there's a balance to be struck. Sometimes you should care what other people think of you, if you don't want to be bitter and alone. Other times it's better to let the haters hate.
1. My immediate family I meant spouse and children, not parents and siblings. Your point about family of origin is quite important.
2. I'm pretty old. My point is you can't really ever know how other people see you. It's what makes telepathy such an appealing/terrifying idea. You can be very responsive to your friends emotional states and the effect you have on them without ever really knowing how they see you. You might convince yourself you understand when you are young, but as you live longer, you have more situations where you are kind and affectionate to people that you see having a lot of flaws. My friends aren't really judging me, we just have a mutually enjoyable relationship. They know my flaws quite well, but like me anyways.
Tying your friendships to some theories you have about how other people think about you is probably a pretty good way to avoid friendships, especially if you are aiming for some certain standard and avoid or hide yourself when you miss the mark. It's like the old canard about getting a special friend - when you don't need another person, you become more attractive to other people.
Caring more about what your immediate family thinks doesn't mean you change your sexual preference to suit them - in fact it's exactly why it would be upsetting that they were 'all homophobes' in that scenario, more so than the fact that there do exist substantially more than [size of immediate family] homophobic people in the world for most, I imagine.
Hahaha, that is so true and so annoying. I am perpetually scared of sending the wrong thing in the wrong group. It gets even worse if the groups have similar names. If only there was a way to filter on excluded members...
If there's a sufficiently large number of people whom you want to exclude, the problem might be that you're simply in the wrong group. It clearly keeps attracting folks you don't want to be in a group with.
And if your group has a very large number of subgroups, it's a sign group health is deteriorating. Side channels are healthy, but if they become the main mode of conversation, congrats, you're starting to develop cliques.
> In respect for the dead person, we absolutely have to carry out their will.
We trust judges when they decide to send people to prison for decades, so I don't see why we shouldn't trust them if they decide that this will is probably a mistake.
We don't trust judges. We trust the process they follow. A judge is not a God, why we have a hierarchy to redo judgments (lift a decision to a higher court).
Also, IMHO judging a person for something they did not do is amongst the worst things that can happen in a society. This is also why there is a principle of rather letting 10 guilty people go free rather than convicting a single innocent person.
I don't know. If the case is not discussed in court, we will never know. This is why we should not blindly follow a will out of respect of the dead person, because there may be evidence this is just a mistake.
I agree and I don't think it is specific to the world of entrepreneurs and/or social science experiments. If your target variable depends on a large number of correlated variables you are very unlikely to formulate the correct hypothesis by accident. This is why you need intuition or good judgement in science, just as much as in every thing else.
- The satellite will accomplish this [precision] by having the usual main Earth-measuring techniques co-located on board [satelite navigation, interferometry, laser ..] When used together, the ESA expects to be able to correct for biases inherent in each technique.
- An updated International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF) will have immediate benefits on satellite-based systems, impacting Galileo-enabled applications in fields like aviation, traffic management, autonomous vehicles, positioning and navigation
- The space agency added that meteorology, natural hazard prediction, monitoring climate change effects, land management and surveying – as well as the study of gravitational and non-gravitational forces as fields – would also see benefits.
My office is on a hybrid schedule and so far it's worked out pretty well. I think for a lot of people it's not a question of whether wfh or the office is 'better', but being able to have some flexibility to suit their own circumstances.
> Implementing them in large industrial (or open source) code bases in a maintainable way -- and then actually maintaining that code -- is a different skillset, a different set of interestes,
You're making a very general point on how algorithm research and software development are two different things, which is of course true. However OP's question is genuine: a lot of research in OR is very practical, and researchers often hack solvers to demonstrate that whatever idea offers a benefit over existing solving techniques. There are no reason to believe that a good new idea like this one couldn't be demonstrated and incorporated into new solvers quickly (especially given the competition).
So the quoted sentence is indeed a bit mysterious. I think it just meant to avoid comment such as "if it's so good why isn't it used in cplex?".
I am not a native speaker, but my feeling is that several can also be used to insist on non-uniqueness. E.g. "Most rich families own several cars" or "Jupiter has several moons" (= not one). I'm surprised that it is not mentioned in the article.
> Several came into English in the 1400s, but didn't develop its quantity meanings until the 1500s. (Several initially meant "distinct or separate" in English.) Yes, meanings: several originally referred to more than one.
>> They be but one heire, and yet severall persons.
— Edward Coke, _The first part of the institutes of the lawes of England _, 1628
Most laws can be misinterpreted, it doesn't necessarily mean they are useless.