The european parliament is elected by citizens, and the council is formed of the heads of state of each member country (which would have been elected in the way each country decides).
The "invisible buffer" doesn't match OS X functionality (with Firefox if it matters).
In the state dropdown of the article I can type "New J" to highlight "New Jersey" and then press backspace + "Y" and it will highlight "New York". In the headless UI version if I try similar "To" to get "Tom…" but if I press backspace and "a" I don't get "Tanya…" I get "Arlene…"
On Firefox on Linux, I get a different incorrect behavior. "To" + backspace + "a" (fast enough that it doesn't trigger the timeout for starting a new search) remains on "Tom...".
I just tried this with a native <select> in Safari, Chrome, and Firefox and they all worked like the Headless UI version, where a single backspace clears your entire buffer.
If you want to seriously discuss you should put which data points your comparing so others can also compare. When I look at that sheet and look at the rates comparing unvaccinated vs fully faccinated the death rate is lower for every age group when vaccinated.
You are not. Slightly more vaccinated people died than unvaccinated. However, not from COVID-19. The elderly are more likely to be vaccinated and also more likely to die of heart disease or cancer. You'll note in Table 8 that 34k unvaccinated died of COVID, compared to 14k vaccinated. Also, 83% of people are vaccinated, meaning the unvaccinated would have had to have died at even greater rates, at over 900% the rate of vaccinated. However, to further account for the elderly being at greater risk of COVID, you'll further note that Table 8 has an "age-standardised mortality rate", showing that on an individual basis, choosing to remain unvaccinated made someone 3230% more likely to die of COVID.
This isn't an agreement with the parents comment about Tesla but re-usable rockets weren't invented by SpaceX. The idea existed for a while and various projects got to different stages. Including a functional 'McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X'.
The project got taken over by NASA and the budget cut before being axed. You really do sound a bit too fanatical and should probably question more instead of accepting companies as entirely revolutionary.
The no JIT is only for the metro interface and ARM based machines - this is only for tablet like machines and is for the same reason apple do the exact same, the apps are all sandboxed and can't write executable memory regions. Normal x86 machines will behave just as they do now.
What does Native really mean in this context? It launches from Dashboard or is it that it's purchasable from the App Store? Being able to save sites to springboard has been possible for years.
This isn't using native controls, just HTML and CSS to make it look native. Javascript is a great languages however HTML + CSS were not designed for this purpose, try creating a complex UI in this and watch performance start dropping quickly.
Although I have used Go in the past and do like it - thought I would just point out that nearly every positive about Go you mentioned had 'Good enough' prefix it. Are you actually finding Go good or only enough for your current needs?
As a question: do you see parts of your startup expanding past the area of Go? Would a mixture of other languages help?
Great question Stuart. I'd first like to say that in today's environment, it would be insane not to take advantage of a mixture of languages. If you have the expertise within your team, you should definitely leverage the strengths of the various language eco-systems. We've been developing an RPC-like system (think ZeroMQ meets BERT-RPC) so that services can be written in whatever language is most suitable — Go, Python, Ruby, CoffeeScript, Java — and our datastore core is written in C. Hell, we're even working on our own object-capability language using PyPy's translation toolchain.
But, having said all that, the biggest surprise has been how Go has become the dominant language within our code base. We initially started using Go to just handle the networking layer. But it soon became apparent that Go was perfectly viable as a general purpose language. And today the majority of our code is written in Go.
So, whilst we'll continue to leverage other languages for what they are good at, I can confidently say that Go will be at the heart of our technology stack for the forseeable future. And with the various "good enough" statements, I was trying to say that although Go is not the best language ever for specific features (e.g. syntax, standard library, etc.), it definitely offers the best all round set. And the situation only gets better every day. So I'll definitely say that Go is more than good enough.
Amusing - but a car with 2 passengers going at a conservative 30MPH is very different to a plane flying 9KM over the ground at 567MPH.
I'm just hoping that in 80 years I won't be alive to see my comment becoming horribly wrong, with people laughing at it while a processor flies them across the world.
Amusing - but a car with 2 passengers going at a conservative 30MPH is very different to a plane flying 9KM over the ground at 567MPH.
You're right: building an automatic car is much harder. It's counterintuitive, but speed or altitude are irrelevant if the problem space is sufficiently simple. Additionally, risk doesn't scale linearly. If a plane crashes at 800km/h, all people on board will die; if a car crashes at 130km/h, you'll see a very similar result.
That's true for the occupants of the vehicle but the dangers of those outside are greatly different. I'm not saying that planes will never be flown autonomously however there are a lot of hurdles including convincing the public.
If a car when parking is out by 1% it's maybe sticking out of the space and causes other people to have to park badly too, if a plane rounds incorrectly or a sensor plays up and is 1degree out (so even less than 1%) it lands onto of a terminal filled with tourists.
Even as a professional programmer I tend to trust unknown programmers less and less, bugs get uncovered too late, shortcuts taken... online e-commerce fine, cars and busses - maybe but scaling up the trust and risk involved is difficult.
Planes were capable of being flown autonomously in the 1980s. In particular, the Soviet's space shuttle, Buran, performed unmanned orbital maneuvers and landing during its 1988 test flight.
So, the technology to do these kinds of things has already been done before (though unfortunately neglected!). I think the main challenge is just convincing people that it's safe enough that they will be willing to buy tickets.
I guess the biggest problems will be the legal framework and the power of unions. Technically flying a plane should be easier for a computer than driving a car.
Where a computer fails is when judgment is required. For example, you have an in-air emergency, and are going to have to crash land. What do you pick to crash land on to?
Consider Captain Sully's recent decisions in just such an emergency.
Being a private pilot with a lapsed license, I can't possibly see that emergency landing area selection is a problem worse than navigating a street vehicle in an urban environment. Taking all the GIS databases around, I can't imagine emergency landing site selection would be a huge roadblock.
Just because your not signed in doesn't mean it can't register a complaint - by not tracking username or personal details with the complaint the point of being signed in is reduced to nothing. They can't even make sure you do it twice without tracking your user ID (which they won't do because they could then get username or password).
Therefore being able to register a complaint not signed in seems odd but fine.
That's the whole point I was making. When it doesn't register username or any kind of identifiable information, it just counts 'votes', which doesn't amount to anything, as in the end it's just an arbitrary number open to manipulations.
What do they want to achieve by having the user click a button just to feel good?
Which part with direct power isn't elected?