Does this imply that if I am standing on an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line, and I am lifting and dropping a sufficiently massive object such that I’m causing the object in standing on to accelerate towards the object I’m dropping, that eventually I’ll slow or stop the object I’m standing on?
Sea of Thieves overall best. Hunt: Showdown a close second
Hurt people. And yeah a lot of
That depends on where you live. Most places in the US, yes it is legal. It’s legal to keep almost any data for any reason in most of the US
Many of them think that hurricane relief that they use is different than the hurricane relief the republicans oppose. They currently believe that FEMA grounded rescue helicopters from saving people after Helene because of budget constraints, and that their budget is spent on relocating refugees (of course that’s not the term they use) to political battleground states instead. They think that by voting against the relief they are preserving it
No no, surely the solution to this is a mechanical one
Duck Detective: The Secret Salami
Your username is not the best ever. Why are you lying?
It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point
No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:
However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.
Not to mention India and China vs. the US
Total emissions would tell a different story but population is not the only factor here
If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.
It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.
Gatekeeping on following the scientific method is pretty good gatekeeping if you ask me. Again, what you are arguing is anathema to centuries of scientific endeavors. You’re applying your own interpretation to something that has literally hundreds of years of meaning already, in a way that is just not right. It’s not gatekeeping any more than “a court of law” gatekeeps the concept of justice.
I mean, Yann LeCunn disagrees with you but sure. Go on.
No it literally cannot be so defined. The last part of the scientific method is “report conclusions.” That means public scrutiny free of bias. Internal groups are not public.
This is akin to saying that a corporation doesn’t need to use the courts because it has internal judges. They might have trials, but by definition they are not doing justice.
No, they can’t. Peer review is not the peers you determine - it’s the peers of your community. Science that is not public is not science, because it cannot be independently verified and reproduced. It is not a small point, it’s one of the foundations of the disciplines of science.
Because science is about objective, provable fact following a known and public method. An organization can say their findings are reproducible, but reproducibility is more than just getting the same results every time the same lab runs the same PCR on the same machine. To be truly reproducible your results need to be able to be replicated by anyone with appropriate materials and equipment.
What you are describing is research, not science. It’s not that research is bad, but that science is a philosophical adherence to a method as much as it is that method itself.
The tobacco companies conducted research when they realized smoking caused cancer and hid those findings from others. That’s not science even if their internal researchers were consistent with each other.
Some published papers are not reproducible. All unpublished papers are not reproducible. You’re creating a dangerously wrong equivalence.
Imagine telling Yann LeCun what is and isn’t right when it comes to science
Drat. Thanks 😂