What would your strategy for working with raw image data and implementing a digital “zoom” that doesn’t do any anti aliasing or smoothing? My current thought is to just have an original copy of the data and then the current canvas is just a smaller subset of the original data when zoomed. So a 100x100 pixel image when zoomed 1x would take a 50x50 subset based on the center of the viewport and copy each pixel into a 2x2 to get back to a 100x100 image.
That's interesting because the 3 blazor projects that I have done client work for are all WASM not server. Do you have a source for the stats on server vs wasm deployments or just what you've experienced so far?
For sure. There has been a lot of pushback in the community from both sides of that issue. They wanted to reduce the boilerplate and make it cleaner to make simpler projects (with the goal of enabling microservice scenarios). But that moved some people's cheese from the standpoint of what the recommended path is. The problem is that there's a huge amount of very good documentation on the microsoft documentation site, but it's not organized in a way that makes it easy to find.
The AAVSO and Project Panoptes are two citizen science astronomy projects that are welcoming to all levels of experience. I think like with all hobbies you can spend a lot or a little, although for good astronomy equipment you either have to have machining/engineering skills or deep pockets for the best stuff. You can't really cheat the laws of physics when it comes to lenses, cameras, and mounts. What interests me is the science behind the data processing of photometry. That and the engineering behind building a remote observatory without spending a fortune. You definitely can find things that the pros can't because you will be able to get way more telescope time than a pro does. Things like verifying exoplanet candidates, or observing variable stars and eclipsing binaries and recording the light curves. All stuff that amateurs can contribute to.
> What the author is saying is that much of what we call science are actually facts that we take on faith
This is true from a practical sense in that most people don't validate scientific assumptions that are widely accepted for themselves. But the reason why we are able to reliably take them on faith is the interesting part to me.
Peer review and the scientific method allow for incentive to "prove each other wrong" as well as to have the ability to replicate (or try to) the results for yourself. When I ask my Catholic friend why he believes the Christian God is real, and he says his evidence is that he feels the holy spirit. I have no way to disprove that and no way to replicate or prove that evidence. Therefore it's not really a reliable way to have faith in that fact.
"No data is shared unless your employees specifically request it to be shared, usually as part of an application process for loans, credit, or public aid, or in response to a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), such as a court order."
I got bit on my finger tip by a feral cat and had to get the first dose injection in the fingertip. It was not pleasant. The rest of them were in the butt which was not great but nothing compared to the fingertip. The cat did die and my parents were able to send it in and luckily the tests for the cat came back negative after a couple of days and I did not have to get all the doses.
I realize the satire, but honestly the best thing we ever did was have a vegetable garden. She started eating random vegetables from the garden when she went outside to play and it's been a breeze to get her to love vegetables in meals since. Really feel lucky about that one!
I think your points are still valid, but "still notice downvotes happening" doesn't make sense. You can still dislike a video on youtube. The difference is that when you go to a video with 12 million views making extraordinary claims you'll no longer see 65k downvotes and realize it's a waste of the next 12 minutes of your life and skip it.
I think the point is if you're a contractor and you're not getting the same rates as an equivalent company would for that contract/position you're under-selling yourself. As for the "tax trick" you still don't get out of paying income taxes on the entire revenue you generate. You just pay employment taxes on the portion that is salary. Whether that's "fair" or not is open to debate of course.
Yes and it's precisely because futures and forward contracts are being used that is possible. If it wasn't then market uncertainty and fluctuations in the economy would be more instantly reflected in prices of the end user products consuming those commodities. With hedging now you can focus on margin and operations which is the whole point of your business, not predicting the global economy.
The last sentence is not true. The whole point of a futures contract is to hedge risk and allow price discovery. It is true the companies consuming commodities will buy at almost any price but more active trading results in a price more closer to fair market value over time. It’s the same reason why prices for rarely sold items fluctuate widely between sales. There’s no activity to visibly show the change in demand or supply in between.