I doesn't physically cost any practical amount of money to read an article, a tiny amount of processing power and data transfer. A physical meal costs orders of magnitude more.
I understand why we should pay for articles but if you enforce payment then you'll see a flood of poorly written click bait and a race to the bottom.
Im not suggesting that it will work (to pay per article as we’re describing). But the idea that you should get something for free because you don’t like it isn’t how most things work. Caveat emptor.
Conversely, people said it didn’t cost any practical amount of money to listen to music, yet Spotify thrives.
FWIW, "I didn't like it" returns culture has been growing in the US for a while. If you've ever run an Amazon seller account, you'll have gotten plenty of returns from customers for no reason other than that they didn't like the thing they bought or it "didn't meet expectations". The Costco returns line is also packed with people doing this. Point is, the mindset of not paying for something because you didn't like it is quickly making its way into the physical goods world as well, so it's not as simple as shooting down this digital goods mindset entirely.
What about payment with a refund option? Obviously this could be abused (and likely would be), but I'd think most people would only use the refund option if the article was truly terrible / clickbait.
Or a variant, give a reader the option to deny paying the media outlet within some time window, but the reader doesn't get any of the money back.
This does mean the payment processor and the outlet have to be independent entities. That, though, nicely opens up another possibility of what to do with that money that is denied: distribute it proportionally to all other articles from all other media outlets. Proportionate to what is also a question, but I suspect proportionate to non-denied payment from the processor makes the most sense.
When I was young I remember pay TV being marketed in Australia as "TV with no ads". It's slowly shifted to a premium content with ads model that I find hard to justify when I have access to ad free online services.
As a parent this is doubly so. I know everything my children watch and I don't want them exposed to excessive advertising. I also don't let them watch content on YouTube that has excessive advertising in the show itself. I'll gladly pay money for ad free content that is designed to both entertain and educate.
When pay TV first came here, part of the deal was they weren't allowed to show ads for a certain amount of time. I remember 'ads' for other TV shows like the ABC does, but that was it.
I have no idea why someone in Australia would have Foxtel now if they don't watch sport
Our DirecTV subscription in the late 90's was specifically catered to people who didn't want ads. Then some time later they started advertising and adding a bunch of nonsense channels. This was back when the history channel was actually about history, discovery was about animals and amc about Western movies.
The normal distribution does not define a mathematical meaning of the term "normal". Any distribution can define a normal range relative to that distribution.
Given an expected normal distribution of soil dryness you can compare a given year's distribution.
> Any distribution can define a normal range relative to that distribution.
Any particular sample will always have a corresponding probability in a normal distribution. So what you're saying is kind of right- values always fall within the range of a normal dostribution. That's not what it means to be outside the normal distribution, though. If you have another year that only partly overlaps with the expected distribution, you'll have an area that does not overlap despite being within the same range. That area is the fraction of values outside the normal range.
Log-normal is extremely common in hydrology. Turns out an anomaly in this case is defined as outside one standard deviation[1], so in a perfectly normal year you would expect ~15.9% of soil to be dryer than normal.
The way I'm reading this code is that the cases aren't that distinct. Look at lines 4367 to 4390 and you see 23 distinct cases that could be handled by a range and Mod 3.
I'm a second-year CS student that is still learning in this realm. Is there a general way that most developers would rewrite lines 5261-5284? My assumption is I would look to find some rules I can apply to simplify the code but I'm also aware a CS course is a bit of a bubble and what I've learnt so far might not be the way things are handled in industry.
For example, line 5284 has a 8 inequality operators checking every 4th element (140. 144, 148,...). A single "blocks[1][y][x] % 4 != 0" would remove them all. There also appears to be 3 main segments in that huge block of code (111-118, 119-126, 137-168) which would allow it to be simplified.
A second question: Why is there no comments? Is this common?
It's frighteningly common, and more likely if only 1 developer is working on something. CS students comment far too much, but I would expect a monstrous chain like this to have at least -some- documentation.
One of the best refactoring tools is naming. Arlo Banshee wrote and interesting article about the subject some time ago (http://arlobelshee.com/good-naming-is-a-process-not-a-single...). This is a really long post, but the overall theme is iterate over code until everything has a name. To apply this to your question, the first thing you would do is take those lines, put it in a function with a bad name like “doesSomething” then keep iterating until someone can actually read the code and it makes sense.
In the beginning of learning to program it’s easy to get stuck on the “clever” side of programming, but a lot of the time it can remove readability. The earlier you learn this, the more your future coworkers will appreciate you.
My first major project (at an internship) had all the comments on every file (even getters / setters, and it even had getters/setters because someone told me to). Interestingly enough it was a project that had to read static analysis tools' output and combine it into a single report / webapp, so I was very aware of all the output that was reported and all the niggly little things that these tools (think PMD, CPD, FindBugs, etc) pointed out. Including how a getter wasn't commented.
As mindfulgeek mentions, doing some sort of extract method refactor to slop a name onto it can be a good first step. Then do some sleuthing thru other number name pairings, inserting names in place of the numbers, until you have a solid grasp of what the names should actually be. Feathers in Working Effectively With Legacy Code brings up a concept called seams... u can insert a seam to map to objects and then do object manipulations with polymorphism.
Iirc that particular bit of code is the power logic. You can file an issue on my fork if ys like me to write more on this when im not on a broken phone.
Name, date of birth and contact details (phone and address) are often enough data for a fraudster to commit some serious damage. If I call up my phone company or bank that's probably going to cover the questions they ask me to prove identity. Someone transferring my phone can then get past any 2FA I hold.
At what point do we hold NAB liable for the potential damage they have caused?
Name, DOB, and address is available via the Electoral Roll. While I don't think NAB is blameless, at some point the blame lies with companies that accept insufficient forms of authentication.
For example, to transfer funds with my bank, I get texted a 2FA code and this is a mandatory requirement for online banking at CBA.
Name and address is in the roll. DOB absolutely is not.
Further, suggesting the blame lies with companies accepting "insufficient forms" of authentication obviously does not bear up in light of this. 2FA texts, for example, are easily worked around by SIM-swapping. Performing a SIM-swap in Australia generally does not require 2FA, and the details leaked herein would get you well on your way.
Neither of my parents finished high school and didn't value education but they did value hard work and they encouraged me to get a trade. I joined the military, got a trade there, and now in my early/mid 30's I'm completing a CS degree.
Working for others isn't such a bad life if you have the drive to establish a life that you want for yourself.
Depending on the size of the effect, 11 participants can be very valid in an experiment. For example, assume you have 11 participants having a hormone measured after an experiment. If normal readings are 300 with a SD of 30, and at the end of the experiment their mean is 520 with a SD of 40, then you've just shown a strong, significant effect.
Yeah, except it usually would be (in the best case scenario) more like "520 with a SD of 40" for 10 people and "1 outlier", which you wouldn't really be able to properly conceptualize let alone explain, since your "outlier" is freaking 10% of the group.
That is, ignoring the fact that experiments without a control group can be hardly considered valid at all.
A decent amount of your electricity bill is related to supply. Modern countries have a lot of rules around the reliability of their energy supply so companies spend a lot of money to guarantee that infrastructure is up to scratch. You're not paying for just the energy but for the transport of that energy.
A home system that uses its own electricity has the advantage of reducing the demand on the grid. A commercial system doesn't.
I'm sitting here considering the possibility of making my own bot to play low stakes online poker ($1.50 sit n go). Run it on 6 tables at once and I imagine it would be facing really poor opponents and would have a steady flow of cash.
I understand why we should pay for articles but if you enforce payment then you'll see a flood of poorly written click bait and a race to the bottom.