Because the relationship between money and utility is not constant across the human population.
If we consider a meal at a moderately fancy resteraunt then there are people without much money who would be aghast at spending that much on a meal. Conversely there are rich people who wouldn't even look at the menu-prices or the bill.
Every time I have gotten an Uber in London the car has been a Toyota Prius, I don't know if that particular car is still congestion charge exempt but even if it isn't what's to stop minicabs all starting to drive vehicles which are exempt?
Because the things he changed were fundamental to Martini core. Changing it would require a re write of any code which touched Martini's API. Because people use that project it's better to start a new one with a different philosophy.
That's a shame, I happen to like the use of sigils to denote pointer types, to my eyes it makes code a lot easier to read.
Out of curiosity why are they making the change? And will they add the `let x = box Thing` syntax or as an optional addition to the language or will it fully replace the old `let = ~Thing` syntax?
I don't understand the relevance of the title to the service, but it seems like an interesting way of using the bitcoin blockchain to strongly time-stamp messages.
Also the fact that it costs you money to send a message and the more you spend the more "important" the message is happens to be interesting.
My understanding is that usually you want both because AABB is good for broad-phase because it's so quick then true polygon collision can be done in a narrow phase.
Only it couldn't because that's not even close to what the article was saying.
It was pointing out that looking the part gives opportunities which might otherwise be closed. Therefore spending your meagre savings buying fancy clothes can be seen as an investment.
I'm not addressing the validity of the article's point vs yours, but the summary was not correct.
I think the point is that USB vectors allow the malware to jump the airgap but not reliably, maybe it puts some data on a USB stick and jumps it back but for the most part once it is behind the airgap it will only do what it's programmed to do.
Being able to communicate via ultrasound means that if you have an infection on two computers either side of an airgap in close proximity the theoretically isolated computer can be sent instructions from a C&C server and can send data back at-will.
I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of the story, but either technique in isolation is of limited use, combined however they can be a lot more effective.
In terms of morality you may be correct, but if the child in the article could skip some rote memorisation or other busy work for an extra hour or two of sleep I would bet on her learning "more" at school.
I do like code which has comments which describe the level of confidence the author has in some sections (I feel a happier refactoring code which is marked as being suboptimal).
But in my experience those comments are usually found above cases where it's possible to make a fix in one line rather than one hundred. (sleeping a thread for 0ms rather than re-architecting a gigantic callback structure).
Data structures usually,
If you want to write a linkedhashmap or a dictionary where the keys are autogenerated from the values or any kind of structure not built into the language you are forced to either roll a new structure for each set of types or cast everything to and from (empty)interfaces.
While it's still possible with the casting, it doesn't feel as nice as the rest of the language does.
The other case seems to be any kind of generic pattern with channels, it's possible to build a channel-pair which acts as a single channel with a buffer only bounded by memory, but you can only do it for a single type.
All of these are avoidable or maybe even inadvisable, but it still feels like a hole in the language when you go to do something which is common, useful and trivial in C++/java/C# and you have to use ugly hacks or deal with heavily reduced functionality, especially when the rest of the language is so nice.
To the best of my knowledge mitochondria are inherited exclusively from the mother.
I imagine this is because when the egg is fertalised the mitochondria in the sperm are discarded leaving only the maternal ones.
If you are asking why they don't extract the mitochondria from one of the fathers cells, extract the mitochondria from the egg and then implant the paternal mitochondria: I assume because that would be a lot more difficult and likely to damage/destroy the cells in question.
I am not a biologist so if any of this is wrong please someone correct me.
I remember struggling with this idea, I think my conclusion was that in brave new world people are given happiness but deprived of choice, understanding and meaning.
I expect the language to be broad and the enforcement narrow.