One of the minigames in the game is "upvote post". Your username is the username of the post. I have no idea what the content of the post is, it went by too quickly for me to read it.
The varroa mite has been pretty effective at removing them so far. Today honeybees are essentially livestock, to the point where any given bee you see is very likely owned by someone.
I can't find any data to back that up. On the contrary, it seems there's about 1.4 colonies per square mile in the U.S. Varroa has not been an existential threat to feral honeybees, and almost certainly has hit them much less hard than commercial honeybees because feral honeybees swarm much more often, which means they reproduce more often (thus get to adapt faster) and abandon old comb more often (which helps fight lots of diseases).
I'm not sure if the comment you're replying to is ironic, since it's repeating almost word-for-word my own honeybee rant, but Varroa mites drove feral honeybees in the US to extinction in the 1990s.
(There are lots of escaped, unmanaged honeybee colonies in North America, but it's unclear how many true feral colonies there are --- true feral colonies overwinter and reproduce).
The pipes are pressurized, so I would expect there to be limited avenue for infiltration. (Also, for sewage exposure, you’d need two leaks close together. Not impossible or anything, but much less likely.
Most of the world relies on drinking water collected from rivers downstream of other inhabited areas, so the impact of pollutants like sewage entering the watercourse does not have to enter a leaky water system to have a disastrous impact.
VR is immersive, but it’s hard to fit in to life and there’s a limited array of content available. You can easily use a computer, watch TV or play video games while still being somewhat present with the people around you in reality. VR makes that impossible: you cannot see them, and they cannot see what you see (so even the experience of watching someone play is gone). Furthermore, this makes the experience hard to share — sharing it requires doing that as a whole activity, an activity which only one person can participate in.
Compare with setting up a home theater and having people over to watch a movie, or split screen gaming.
After all that you run into the limited content availability and, as you noted, the high price.
I do wonder why Meta hasn’t done something like license Skyrim or GTA for the quest. It shouldn’t be too expensive compared with the other investments, and would bring over some solidly popular (and big!) content.
The soft cap thing seems like exactly this kind of penny-foolish behavior though. I’ve seen people spend hours trying to optimize their travel to hit the cap — or dealing with flight changes, etc that come from the “expense the flight later” model.
All this at my company would be a call or chat to the travel agent (which, sure, kind of a pain, but they also paid for dedicated agents so wait time was generally good).
That’s super annoying, but it is still straightforward to sideload books in a way that works with Amazon sync, via either the email address or uploading through Amazon.
You don't need to require same-order initialization, but allowing people to do different orders will be confusing when actions are reordered behind the scenes. Especially imagine if there are dependencies between the objects you're passing in.
struct A {
B one;
C two;
};
struct B {
B() {
cout << "init B" << endl;
}
}
struct C {
C() {
cout << "init C" << endl;
}
}
Mixing up the order is confusing:
A{.two=B(),.one=A()}
since `two` is initialized after `one` despite coming before (the comma operator <expr a>, <expr b> usually means `expr a` happens before `expr b`.
This case is a little contrived, but run the evolution forward: you can have members that depend on each other, or have complex initialization logic of their own. There, debugging the specific order of events is important.
China has blocked US social media for years (decades perhaps?). I don't know if they've explicitly said all the reasons, but "social stability" is a big one.
Insurance always balances between cost pooling and making people pay for their increased risk. Car insurance has always been more expensive for riskier drivers: young men pay more, driving “high risk” cars pay more.
If the overall liability pool goes down but the human drivers become an outsized part of it, the insurance company will likely shift that cost to them. If they don’t, someone could set up an autonomous-only insurance company (or google could just insure itself) to take advantage of the lower risk, making the human insurance more expensive (even more so that the liability since the overall pool will be much smaller).
Yes, that is implicit in what I am saying. We have human only insurance pools today. I dont see a good reason why a human only insurance pool in the future would be more expensive than today.
Landlords will raise the rent but can only raise the rent to what the market will bear (which presumably they’re doing anyway). They then have incentive to ensure the broker is worth the fee.
Previously landlords would require renters to work with (and pay) the broker, so there was no incentive to choose a cheaper broker.
