Yup, far too much pressure to use cutting off financial access to harm businesses that are disliked by those in power but are not doing anything evil.
I can see a reason they might be skittish, though: Ashley Madison. Note what she's doing: ENM speed dating. I very much doubt she's in a position to actually verify the E part.
I've watched it happening again and again. Deceptive image that people want to believe, they won't listen when contradictions are pointed out. And they forget that anyone even pointed out the problem. Few people seem to get it that when there's a thousand bad proofs of something it's probably false--and, for those that do, there's the opposite: present a thousand bad proofs of something true.
One objection here: pay-for-sterilization doesn't match with the rest of these because this is treating it solely as a cost to the woman, rather than recognizing that there's a benefit in not bringing a child into a horrible life.
The objection is that offering cash exploits vulnerable women's desperation, treating their reproductive capacity as a commodity to be purchased. Even if the outcome might prevent more suffering, which is an individually subjective outcome, the means matters: it degrades the women involved by reducing a profound personal decision to a market transaction under conditions of coercion, where drug addiction makes the offer 'too good to resist.'
Exactly. Memory access is a major factor in runtime, often more important than instruction counts. And in the vast, vast majority of cases it doesn't matter. I trust the compiler to make reasonable choices, something would have to be deployed at a very large scale before the programmer time of considering such things became cheaper than the hardware savings from doing it. And the vast majority of code simply doesn't execute often enough to matter one way or the other.
Save your brainpower for the right algorithms and for the inner loops the profiler identifies (I did not expect to learn that the slowest piece of code was referring to SQL fields by name!) Ignore the rest.
Yeah, we put an awful lot of work into such research and find nothing that doesn't look like either measuring health consciousness or measuring health. (ie, is going to church weekly actually a benefit, or is the ability to attend a weekly social event what's actually being measured.)
And can come with hidden gotchas. I remember dealing with one bit, presented as an object but I thought that was simply because it was in an object oriented language, it was simply a calculation with no state. Many headaches later I figured out it had some local state while doing a calculation, causing the occasional glitch when triggered from another thread. They didn't claim thread safety, but there sure was no reason for it not to be thread safe.
1) Poking around our local peaks I find that the calculation appears granular, it's offering me things I could see from the summit that I could not see from where I clicked.
2) It's offering me one I never even considered looking at (peeking just beside another mountain, the terrain appeared flat, I never realized there was a distant peak there) and one I knew about--and know I have no hope of actually seeing.
1) So you're expecting to click and see a line of sight that you've seen in real life? Is it just that each point only every records the _longest_, which not be the best or most notable view?
2) As in, in a good way?
No. I'm saying that clicking near a peak was sometimes giving me views that would have required standing elsewhere. The mapping of whether I could see north or south (or neither--most of the trail on that ridgeline does not give views to the north or south) does not accurately correspond to the terrain in any fashion I can discern.
And the second part was simply noting that just because there is a theoretical line of sight doesn't mean you can actually see. The southern view I know goes to haze long before what it's showing me, the northern view is such I didn't even realize there were mountains there beyond the big one close by.
Out of the question. The higher up you are the farther the horizon, I wouldn't be surprised if the longest horizon is from Aconcagua. I have been at 18,000' on Kilimanjaro, the view was absolutely stunning. (But we were tourists, not mountaineers, and had no traction gear. At the time that meant progress became impossible very soon after sunrise. Now the ice has retreated so far that you can expect to summit by daylight without traction gear.)
But the longest possible view isn't to the horizon, it is to another point that can see the same spot of horizon on a reciprocal bearing. And ocean has no such points.
Google Earth shows what it looks like from above. That can be very different from what it looks like from a side view. I've hiked to many spots I saw from above with Google Earth--it can be hard matching up what I see on the ground with what it saw from the sky. It never looks remotely the same.
Also, there is a local sky island completely nontechnical wanna-be 12. Sight lines from up there are huge--except the two times I've been up there I couldn't see anywhere near as far as the supposed sight lines. Roughly 100 miles before all I saw was a haze. (And in a related thread some time ago one of these sight line plotters was getting it seriously wrong. It failed to show areas I knew I could see, it showed areas I knew were blocked by mountains.)
Google Earth can produce a side view just fine, it's just not designed for that so it can be tricky to get the position just right with the available controls.
And like I said, the reason I didn't do it here was because it hid the label on the horizon. But here it is:
But without the label you can't really tell what you're looking at. And the big problem is there's no "sideways" zoom like a telescope. Google Earth effectively treats zoom like altitude only.
In my experience while hiking tall things, the Google Earth view is accurate in terms of what you see, if you manage to get the viewpoint next to the ground like this. And you appreciate that the resolution is obviously limited.
Ok, it works better at that range--it's the resolution. Watching that load it's divided the world up into polygons rather than actually having an elevation map. Great at long range, inferior to a topo map at shorter range.
where <range> is the "distance from camera to target point".
Apparently the tricky part is placing a pin, which belongs to an encoded /data= parameter, and from what I gather nobody's discovered how to set that data.
It seems that it might be possible to dynamically generate a KML file which defines everything (including pins) using markup, but it's not clear if there's a way to pass that or encode it in a single link to Google Earth (as opposed to the user having to manually load it once in Google Earth). Google Maps is basically the same as Google Earth in the web interface, so there might be a way to do these things there.
So it's definitely possible to do something, but figuring out exactly how far you can go might take some experimentation.
I can see a reason they might be skittish, though: Ashley Madison. Note what she's doing: ENM speed dating. I very much doubt she's in a position to actually verify the E part.
reply