It's just that "catastrophic" changes meaning over time. Permafrost melting on a massive scale? Catastrophic prediction thirty years ago, just another item in the news today. Losing almost all coral reefs? Today it's just something we can't prevent anymore.
Title is incorrect. She lost her job because she outed her self on a controversial image that went viral. She then shared that image on her own social media.
> Ms. Briskman said she became aware of the photograph the next day, when Indivisible Loudoun ACTION, an anti-Trump Facebook group, posted Mr. Herman’s tweet and asked, “Who is this?” Ms. Briskman replied in the comments section that she was the cyclist.
Absolutely correct. Even if you just change one line of code it will take weeks to get approved. Totally unacceptable. Chrome approval process is measured in minutes.
Due to this and ff terrible market share there is little reason to develop for ff.
Because we all know here that Google's automated review is perfect both in Chrome Web Store and in Google Play Store and that their respective support (the same?) is top notch.
Your giving really general advice that fits YOUR needs and experience. Meanwhile, my company has been in business for 10+ years and we have 60+ severs streaming a shit to of data 24x7.
Running "a few" dedicated servers is not some magic catch all for everyone.
If you're streaming any kind of volume of data from AWS, you're pretty much burning money compared to other services, unless you've secured steep discounts on the published prices.
I too have run networks for companies that's been in business 10+ years, with as many servers, and I've done that on both AWS, colo'd servers, managed servers, and hybrid setups of all of that, and I've yet to see an instance where AWS was cost effective at published prices for base load.
I have seen AWS be cost effectively used to handle spikes or batch jobs, and I have recommended it for clients that care more about the brand name (to tell their customers for example) than cost, or have very specific needs. I have also seen it used cost effectively once you get big enough to secure steep discounts.
Buying yahoo was a very dumb move for VZ unless they just want hold assets OR completely overhaul yahoo. Yahoo has been a losing brand since circa 2000. Soon as yahoo took over tumblr it started to suck more.
source : I work on other peoples tumblrs site all the time
AOL does a lot of advertising. Yahoo has a ton of eyeballs. Verizon has data. That already is a good match for all three. Yahoo is still close to a top 5 site. Definitely top 10. Yahoo also owns some advertising infrastructure like Brightroll and Flurry. I have experience in Brightroll myself. It's not that rare to run across people spending close to $100K a week on Brightroll.
It wasn't a bad move at all. They were also able to take off a few hundred million from the price because of the hack. Made the deal even better.
Verizon will definitively be the 3rd biggest advertising platform after Google and Facebook. Not a bad place to be when you already make billions in profit from your Verizon Wireless oligopoly.
About Tumblr. Yahoo has already written off at least $700M of its original purchase price. So Tumblr isn't a big factor when buying Yahoo.
Note: In no way do I like what Verizon will be doing. Using their vast amounts of data on users via their internet/phones services and now all the web properties they own for advertising and targeting is awful for privacy and plain old decency. I just mean strictly business-wise, this is likely to be a great deal for Verizon.
If Verizon can execute, it could even be bigger, given that they also have the FCC in pocket, and they have both mobile carrier data and snooped home internet data.
Yeah def they can be a legitimate powerhouse with web properties and ads. It's hard to guess how much revenue and profit Oath will be doing in 5 years. We won't know anything too soon since first Yahoo needs to be fully acquired and some time needed to adjust to Oath being the parent company.
The company I work for has piles of Visual Basic 6 code that will be here for as long as their product is viable (Prepaid credit cards services). The growth is simply not their to perform a rewrite. It's sad but is also a reality.
VB6 was incredibly easy to work with, and honestly, the value it provided by being able to link a quickly-made, solid UI with easy, solid code was highly underrated.
Same with Delphi which had a better underlying language than BASIC, fast compiles, superb version support and a stunning VCL (visual component library), it took VS studio years to catch up with a lot of that.
This is the worst part of the internet. Amateurs and 2nd year college students dismissing months/years of hard work by actual professionals. They take all this work and "hand wave" it away in less time than it takes to make coffee.
The internet is full of amateurs and they are very very confident about their abilities.
Professionals don't always get things right, either, and reactionless thrust doesn't really fit into our best current physical model. That doesn't mean it can't exist - but, given the general usefulness of our current model in predicting how things will behave, there's reasonable cause for extraordinary skepticism in response to claims that one of its "can't happen" conditions is inaccurate.
Maybe the paper's conclusion is accurate! Maybe this physical "can't happen" actually can, and the model needs extending to account for that. It wouldn't be the first time. But it also wouldn't be the first time that a "can't happen" really can't happen, and the result suggesting otherwise is an artifact of the way an experiment was run, rather than an accurate description of a previously unsuspected physical phenomenon. Going by past examples, the latter is much more likely than the former. So there's nothing unreasonable, even for people like myself who aren't knowledgeable enough to evaluate the paper on its own merits, in reserving credulity until the result is shown by other experimenters to be reproducible.
I totally understand some scepticism, but there appears to be the archetypal response of 'Oh, I bet NASA hasn't thought of this ...' when it's inconceivable that NASA hasn't, in fact, thought of that.
Some of the most sensible comments I've seen here have basically said 'It seems to violate what we know of physics, so hopefully it's right and we have some interesting times ahead'.
It's the dismissal, out of hand, after a relatively extensive amount of research and study -- especially compared to what the armchair critics can supply -- that I find frustrating.
Yeah, sure, I get that it seems implausible, but it transcends hubris to know that it's simply experimental error.
This is the best part of the internet. Amateurs and 2nd year college students challenge professionals to make their months/years of hard work comprehensible. They take all this work and question it unless presented with hard, verifiable facts and data, sometimes over a coffee.
The internet is full of amateurs and they are very very eager to point out when they are not fully grasping something, in one way or another.
Lets be clear here, the people who ran published this test are also skeptical about this. However they did everything possible to reduce and remove errors from their calculations. This means one of two things, either our present understanding of physics is incorrect, or our present understanding of experimental physics and the ways errors creep into our experiments is incomplete. The scientists who did this test suspect the latter, however they've done everything they know to remove mistakes. Much like when we are troubleshooting why our computer won't start we don't jump to the CPU is dead, they also don't just jump to the big conclusion. It's still neat though because we'll still learn something meaningful, and you never know it really could open new understanding of reality.
UN predicted catastrophe in 1989
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0