It depends on the specifics of your format, but we’ve had success embedding the questions and answers separately. If either match, you return the complete question and answer text. Make sure to deduplicate before returning, in case both match.
I think your math is correct, and it will be very limited compared to a real-life retina screen, but I think there's also a perceived resolution increase from having binocular vision and moving.
If you hold your head steady while looking through a window with a plastic screen on it, things outside are obstructed. If you move your head slightly back and forth and focus in the distance, the screen pretty much disappears.
Your brain can do some motion smoothing to determine the "actual" content, even if it's sampled. I'm not sure how you could quantify it, and it only helps a relatively small amount, but it's there.
This a strange framing, because the implication is that small cars are much less safe than others. But this article doesn't mention anything at all about SUVs/trucks. A quick search shows multiple articles saying that all types of cars/SUVs/trucks are doing pretty poorly with this new test on average.
Crash test/safety ratings are useless for comparing across vehicle classes.
Generally speaking smaller cars are the loser when it comes to collisions, if the other vehicle is larger/heavier. Even if both sides have best-in-class safety scores.
I'm pretty sure those results can only be compared across vehicles of the same class. As in, a bigger car can get a poor rating while still being better than a smaller car with a good rating.
On the other han, euro crash tests are absolute (as far as I know). You can see the decrease in safety in smaller car models, down to which part of the body is getting crashed in which type of collision in a smaller car, but is intact in a larger car.
Euro crash tests include large weighted components of safety to others outside the car.
So it's totally possible for a car more safe then another for its passengers, in all conditions, to be nonetheless ranked lower because of lower pedestrian safety or something.
The argument is that the "simpleness" of the doorbell isn't a good heuristic for the amount of impact.
According to wikipedia [1], the transformer on a standard doorbell can use 2-3 watts of power at all times. That's 1400-2100 watt hours per month — about one hundred times as much as a ring doorbell uses (Less than 20 Wh per month).
The cost and impact of the Ring includes more manufacturing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Ring ended up having a larger environmental cost, but it's not as clear cut as your incredulity makes it seem.
> According to wikipedia [1], the transformer on a standard doorbell can use 2-3 watts of power at all times. That's 1400-2100 watt hours per month — about one hundred times as much as a ring doorbell uses (Less than 20 Wh per month).
Interesting thing to know because here in Brazil we don't route PELV (Protected Extra-low Voltage) to the doorbell. The external switch just carries the full voltage from the mains (127 Vac or 220 Vac, according to the state). Maybe it's not the safest design after all.
However this constant power usage can be safely removed by using a non-rechargeable 12V battery that would power a relay that will trigger the mains-powered bell when the (purely mechanical) external switch is pressed. This removes the constant power usage and such battery should last for years with a typical usage scenario (less than one second per push or so).
You might want to take a look at the Citroën Ami. 6000 euro including VAT. Not sure which country you're in, but it seems more likely that something street legal in France would work for you.
I'm in Germany. Had a quick look at the Ami. The "problem" is the maximum speed of 45 km/h. As inner-city traffic normally is 50 km/h this will make you kind of a disturbance for other motorists and this will turn people down or keep them from buying this. Not to mention that overland traffic is normally 100 km/h and well... 45 is quite slower... Nevertheless, good idea, I like it.
Depending on your climate and what you mean by "windows cracked", you would be much better off with a heat recovery ventilation (HRV) system. They have the explicit purpose of pulling in outside air while only losing about 20% of the heat difference between indoor and out.
With slightly open windows, you're losing a bunch of heat for very little ventilation.
It looks like there could be a reasonable explanation for this. There are apps that have different behavior whether or not there is text in the clipboard (e.g. enabling a "paste" button), and they're only checking that the text exists, not what it is. There's a new API that will let devs do that without triggering the user notification.
If TikTok is actually constantly loading the clipboard, that's obviously terrible. I'd bet this behavior is gone by the next release, and that shows how useful this new notification is.
> There are apps that have different behavior whether or not there is text in the clipboard (e.g. enabling a "paste" button)
People keep saying this but I've never seen one of these app-specific paste widgets. And even if I did, I wouldn't miss it in the slightest for the sake of not allowing every app to be reading my clipboard at all times.
It's inexcusable to me that there isn't a permissions prompt for this. Two of my most common types copy-pasted strings are URLs and passwords.
I can't imagine being one of the PMs/higher-ups that decided to allow clipboard content to be shared willy-nilly like this. Like, what must be going through their minds when they make decisions like this? "User experience at all costs?" Seems contrary to their stance on privacy.
Personally I couldn't care less about google seeing whatever junk I sometimes have in my clipboard if it means I can more quickly go to the address I'm looking for
and I'm sure there are many who couldn't care less about the malware running on their windows machine as long as they can browse facebook. What's your point?
I don't use any Google apps so I don't know, but even if I did, it's such a minuscule amount of effort that's being saved by having a custom prompt when the generic path is so easy.
It's tricky; little things like this may not seem like much, but in aggregate they can be quite frustrating to users. Personally, this is something I do often enough that it noticeably reduces friction for me so I live with it because it's very convenient.
However, it seems like there should still be a way to provide nearly as much convenience to users while still protecting their privacy.
Here's an example, highlighting a band name on a festival website. Stock Chrome (and Spotify) on a stock Android on Pixel 3A https://imgur.com/a/1GqrRVs
Yes, but it seems like the grandparent was trying to fit in every polysyllabic word they could find.
They're saying that some groups tend to have more children and some have fewer. The groups that have more will become a larger and larger percentage of the populace (because they have more kids), and the groups that have few children will disappear. Therefore the global birth rate will go back up to the levels of a couple hundred years ago.
(I don't agree with this idea, just trying to present their argument with more straightforward vocabulary)
Just because something hasn't happened yet does not mean it's completely unpredictable. COVID-19 is coming, and if we don't put significant preventative measures in place, many more people will die from it in 2020 than the yearly flu.
