It is misleading because it is a very specific case in California/US. For people in other countries these things don't apply. We have 10k euro discount to Electric cars for instance. It would apply to both cars equally.
I have the exact same headphones, and while I don't have the 'exploding' sound when listening on the phone, I do have the constant hissing and it is driving me insane!
Well, I know people that made a living and brought up two children with the help of Herbalife, so it is not THAT bad. It is not easy, and not a good job, on those points I do agree though.
What's with all the survivorship bias in these responses? For every person you know that's made money in an MLM, that mathematically means there were 1,000 people AT MINIMUM below them who were scammed somewhere around $300 to usually $20,000 (when you're poor that can be 3 months worth of savings and the difference between taking multiple overdraft hits + a title loan) to live a hijacked version of the American Dream. The burned relationships are even more significant, again especially with people in poverty where family is everything. Look at "A Framework for Understanding to Poverty" by Ruby Payne for more on this.
Btw of course a scam will make some people successful, that's what scams do, take people's money. If someone isn't getting rich, it isn't a scam in the end.
That being said, MLMs are weird and quite honestly conceptually bizarre to reason through. They thrive on this and they operate in the gaps and blindspots of human reasoning.
Here's another way to describe MLMs:
-1). They get you hyped up on success and by borrowing the best of innovations that were mastered by Evangelical churches and various performing arts over the last 200 years (see Aimee Mcpherson, the amazing female preacher from LA and the inspiration for the male preacher in "There Will Be Blood" with Daniel Day Lewis).
-2). By pretending to have a business they can sell you a $500 or so "gold" level business kit to launch your business.
-3). They then get you so hyped up you talk to all of your friends, reluctantly 2 or 3 of them buy. Now the MLM has made $500 + $1000 or so from your friends. That means you as a "mark" has been taken for $1500.
-4). Rinse and repeat with your other friends, burning social circles and harvesting the ashes as you go.
If products don't get sold to actual consumers in sufficient numbers to pay everyone, then the money has to come from somewhere. It generally comes from "lower" distributors that one signs up. Those who are successful and see a profit by doing this talk about it; those who lose money do not.
Ergo, no social good, the majority of people talking about it are successful, and it ruins lives.
kind like the whole venture/startup industry. promote lottery mentality. pay below market rates for the effort and time put into to startups. only a few get rewarded. Only difference they seduce you with your own ideas.
You do have to consider that this is an 8 core, and more and more applications are being developed with this in mind. Whoever still thinks that Single threaded performance is the most important, lives in the past.
That's not true. 2 weak horses != 1 strong horse. 1 strong horse can do the work of 2 weak horses, but not the other way around. A single core can run multiple threads, but multiple cores can't work together on a single-thread task.
Sure, but Excel is presumably one of the most optimized (in terms of the amount of money and brainpower devoted to optimizing it) applications in existence.
That's the price of backward compatibility. But I think it's a bit of a "Seinfeld is unfunny"[1] situation; if Microsoft decided to save on the nine-figure budget and outsource Excel development to, say, your favorite purveyor of antivirus software, you'd notice real fast.
I think you're right that it's more than 10, but I don't think it's much more than 20%. Q4 last year it was almost exactly 20% as part of a downward trend. There's a good chance it's somewhat below 20% right now.
What is the green "shadow" on the right of the moon? I'm not saying this is fake, but it looks like what I see in some greenscreen videos. I am really curious.
"EPIC’s “natural color” images of Earth are generated by combining three separate monochrome exposures taken by the camera in quick succession. EPIC takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband spectral filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these color images.
Combining three images taken about 30 seconds apart as the moon moves produces a slight but noticeable camera artifact on the right side of the moon. Because the moon has moved in relation to the Earth between the time the first (red) and last (green) exposures were made, a thin green offset appears on the right side of the moon when the three exposures are combined. This natural lunar movement also produces a slight red and blue offset on the left side of the moon in these unaltered images."
You'd think they could be smarter about combining the R,G,B images. E.g., allow for the thing under each pixel to have moved a little from one image to the next, look at all their narrowband images (which will typically be strongly correlated, especially for nearby wavelengths) to estimate how fast each part of the image is moving, and then to get a pixel in the final image combine its G with slightly offset (maybe interpolated) R and B.
Fiddly but hardly, er, rocket science.
(Of course for some purposes you really need the unaltered R,G,B images. But if you're producing a single RGB JPEG image for public consumption, that's not one of those purposes.)
[EDITED to add:] More difficult, I guess, is dealing with things that appear in only some of the planes. E.g., if G is taken last then there will be bits of Earth at the trailing edge of the moon in the G frame that have no counterparts in the R,B frames because the moon occluded them in those frames. So there will still be artefacts in the image. But I'd have thought they'd be less objectionable than the ones you get from just naively stacking the R, G, and B.
It seems like you have re-discovered why segmenting the lunar image and shifting it backwards in time, to align the three color planes, was not done. They don't have the information to fill in the resulting gap, because it was occluded. In a very real sense, they have nothing to put in those pixels.
If they had wanted to do it, they could have. The ephemeris (i.e., basic imaging geometry relating to the location of Earth, Moon, and camera) will be very well-known. That bread-and-butter image processing is no problem.
