Systems programmed by humans typically have coding standards. The human body on the other hand has been haphazardly developed over billions of years by the principle quick hack on top of quick hack on top of quick hack.
It's a complete mess of spaghetti code where anything that happens is the result of dozens of sub-systems trying to invoke or override each other.
Hillary is more war eager than Donald. Look at her mails regarding Syria. Also, she hates Russia (meaning that the proxy war there would continue) while Donald do not (meaning he may work to find a solution).
> I remember meeting a guy who had a degree as a food chemist. I asked him what jobs he was after, and he said ... food chemist.
Could someone explain this to me? Like I assume lordnacho had expected that guy to apply for a wider category of jobs, but which jobs? And what is the advantage of that broadness?
Maybe I'm overthinking this, but wouldn't a better solution be to say that server1.localhost doesn't have to be loopback, but that it must be resolved by asking the DNS server at localhost (or alternatively defined in the hosts file).
edit: I don't really have any expertise or experience with this at all, just a thought.
If they actually made that policy, that they will buy any <500k widget that promises the world, then I bet the market could churn out pseudoscience at astonishing rates.
>The classical problem is more or less designed to be a utilitarian thought experiment. Are you willing to be actively unethical for a greater ethical action?
That may be what it is designed to do. But maybe the design is flawed, and it doesn't actually test that? Maybe when you ask random people on the street (or undergrads or whatever) this question, all those details that you don't want to matter, turn out to have a big effect.
Rather than resizing to 320x240, pick that number of pixels randomly. For even better results use some method of variance reduction e.g. divide the screen into n squarish rectangles and pick N/n pixels from every rectangle.
> Moreover, there are only two algorithms you can't game - one that perfectly addresses and solves explicit and implicit aspects of the problem (impossible in practice), and one that is perfectly random.
The marginal utility you could get by fine-tuning the trade off is low.
It's another type of bike-shedding essentially.