> Some see a university education as an example of this: it costs cleverer and more conscientious types less to get a degree than stupider and lazier ones, allowing employers to distinguish between the two.
Wait, how? If two people both have a degree, how does that help distinguish who is stupid?
I think they mean it probabilistically: given the cost, a "stupid and lazy" person is less likely to get a degree, so employers can hope that the percentage of such people among university grads will be lower than in the general population.
The case you are confused by is a version of the model there. The relevant material is covered in any intermediate-to-advanced microeconomics textbook.
on average the "cleverer" ones get the degrees easier, hence there's a higher chance to pick a "cleverer" candidate if selecting by this criterion than when selecting at random
Could it be kinder, at times, to play to the cultural norm? If people have been raised to say "sir" to their boss, could asking them to do otherwise cause them discomfort without benefit?
I have struggled with this myself, as I don't believe work hierarchy should convey any fundamental difference between people, and we are best off treating each other as equals.
No I don't think so. Vietnamese culture is quite flexible, especially young people, and changing fast.
Also, it's not like I'm making a big deal out of it. I'm not forcing anyone to call me by my name, just an occasional reminder. And I have been successful with a couple of the staff who are now relaxed and chatty with me.
There's another aspect which is that age is extremely important in Vietnamese society. As a slightly older male than my staff, I get referred to as "anh" which kind of translates to "older brother", although does have some level of a respectful connotation as well. If I was considerably older I'd be referred to as "chu" (uncle) which has even more respect conferred.
A close (but actually not accurate) English translation to both of these is "sir". I suspect, but haven't been able to confirm, that part of my being called sir comes from this bad translation, and when I can explain that the meaning of sir in English actually comes from the class system rather than the familial respect system, it does get through. But unfortunately there's too much of a language barrier to explain something nuanced like this.
I was about to say I thought you might be mistaken because you can always use some variant of "group concat" to get sets of fields to show in comma seperated form...
But then I realized even with that, I couldn't get the output under discussion without subqueries. And I don't consider that a win for me.
Agreed completely. Sometimes I've worked hard to put the finishing touches on side projects to make them usable by others and have been pleasantly surprised by the interest. But in most cases, even when I finish, almost no one cares.
And while finishing is an important lesson early on, just so you know how hard that "last 20%" is, it's grueling and not typically very informative or unique after that first couple times.
So I'm now squarely in the camp of do what I want and finish what I want on the side, with no guilt. If I enjoy the journey I call it good. Finishing is for the day job.
You clearly know more about this than me, because I'm currently Googling to understand what "diametrical corners" are. But in a simple implementation, wouldn't the x and y velocities both be reversed at once with a corner hit, both side and top/bottom collisions having been detected "at once" in the same part of the code between updating positions? And then the logo would just bounce out exactly the way it came in?
If you just mean there's a gravitational force on the Earth from the plane then, sure, but that's true for any object (including you and me). For an object on the ground, the normal force of that object on the ground balances their gravitational pull on the Earth, so the Earth experiences a net force of zero from the object and so isn't accelerated by it.
But I guess you mean that the plane has a net force pulling the earth towards it. But that would violate conservation of momentum – in fact the net force is zero, just as for an object on the ground. The plane's wings push the air down (the reaction to that is what keeps the plane up) and the resulting downdraft of that air exerts a force downwards on the earth.
That's all assuming the plane is in steady flight. If it's taking off, or just ascending, then overall it is pushing the Earth away from it. Conversely, when descending the Earth is pulled, overall, slightly towards it. The same thing happens when you jump: you push the Earth away from you (a much smaller distance than you travel away from it!), then on the way back down the Earth travels back towards you.
Crud I think you're right. I had it in my head that in steady flight, the plane had zero change in momentum, whereas, the air, collectively, gained net downward momentum. So to balance it all out, the earth must be gaining upward momentum (though of course spread over such an enormous mass as to make the velocity term imperceptible.)
Usually you draw a line from the trailing edge (which is sharp so unambiguous) to the point on the leading edge that makes the line the longest.
The definition that makes the most sense, though, is to disregard the geometry of the wing and define zero angle of attack as the zero-lift angle, because then lift is proportional to AoA.
Exactly. At $500 or $1000 per record, PII starts to look highly radioactive. Companies would be avoiding it's collection with a passion. And those that had to hold it would be compelled to do so less stupidly.
* I do acknowledge you qualified the question with "better".