I agree that testing colder conditions would be useful, but I guess you get into problems with it being ice and snow that you're testing, not the "summer tyres get too hard in the cold" hypothesis.
It's winter if it's noticeably cooler than summer. For instance London's climate has a January average minimum temperature of just under 3C, which is very clearly winter compared to the July minimum of 14C. (figures from Met office site on their Heathrow station.) While the temperature does drop below 0C sometimes, it is not consistently below zero.
In southern England pretty much nobody changes tyres for winter -- you just use the same set all year. Optimising for "2C in the wet" seems about right...
> but I guess you get into problems with it being ice and snow that you're testing
If it's not actively snowing for a few days roads get clear by thawing during day because of salt/cars being hot/sun shining.
The "summer tyres get too hard in the cold" idea could very well come from places where the typical winter is at least < -5°C. It's not uncommon in central/eastern/northern europe for temperatures to be < -10°C for extended periods of time.
The linked article claims "in dry conditions, summer tires have the best grip down to 0C", though, which doesn't seem to match where you suggest the crossover point is.
winter tires, especially the snow versions, are straight out a source of danger here in central europe.
i just put some snow chains in for the winter surptises, and ride with my summer tires because its grip is clearly better on dry and wet bithumen, even in near zero temps, which is most of the season.
ARMv8 also gives you a a UDF imm, for a guaranteed undefined insn with an immediate payload.
The reason to want a true UDF imm with an immediate comes down to it being pretty solidly guaranteed that it's going to turn into your language/OS equivalent of a SIGILL insn. In theory an OS could by convention allocate some subset of BRK space for arbitrary userspace purposes, but in practice none did, so trying to use BRK gets you dumped into a debugger, or doesn't have consistent behaviour. It's nice for userspace to have something that doesn't need active OS support.
This is just unfortunate ambiguous phrasing -- Tim Ferris (and anybody else happy on part time hours rather than taking a part time job because they can't find a full time job) doesn't get counted because they don't match the "and wants one" qualifier.
The white paper states the definition more precisely:
"LISEP’s definition of “True” employment or unemployment accepts the U-3 rate for comparison purposes, but modifies it by adopting two important stipulations. The first stipulation deals with the workweek. To be employed for the purposes of LISEP’s true employment concept, an individual must either have a full-time job
(35+ hours per week) or have a part-time job but no desire to be full-time (e.g., students). The second stipulation is that an individual must earn at least $20,000 annually."
The Severn Valley railway is about to start a trial where you can buy a standard railway network ticket to Bewdley which is then valid on the SVR on special purpose trains for the Kidderminster to Bewdley section; some of those will be steam. I think if that trial becomes a permanent operation it would count.
Yes, and the UK's industry body - Rail Delivery Group - has thoroughly screwed up distribution of the timetable data for this trial... so no online retailers (with the exception of BR Fares) will be selling tickets for the operation. Hardly a fair trial.
Yes, though I think it's being positioned as a commuter service for the people of Bewdley to get to Birmingham and back rather than for visitors to get to Bewdley.
FWIW, I have always and still do enjoy reading fiction, and I never visualize what's happening in the book. I just read the words and enjoy the story...
My understanding was that a pram is used for a younger child, they are laid flat. A pushchair/buggy for an older child, they sit. Language is often used incorrectly however.
I think it's reasonable to complain that the system doesn't have an "important but not urgent" message category (which might e.g. have the same "window pops up that you have to dismiss" UI but trigger whatever your usual text-message notification sound/vibration is rather than the VERY LOUD siren).
And given that the system does not have that "important but not urgent" category it's also reasonable to complain when the government uses the "urgent" notification system for something that is not urgent.
It caused me to turn off "severe" alerts (leaving "emergency" enabled).
In this case, I think the problem was that it was urgent (multiple fire services were on the verge of being overwhelmed, and that was considered to pose an immediate threat to critical infrastructure) and it was the severity that was arguable.
(I also only have the extreme alerts enabled - I've been disabling severe ones since the system was introduced. If there's a storm I'm likely to be staying inside anyway!)
I see from the court PDF that the process here involves Spirit giving the data to a "Deidentification Agent" (a third party firm that Google selects and pays for) who is responsible for stripping out things that would link data to any particular person before passing the data on to Google. Is that a standard thing, such that everybody in this transaction would have said "yes, put in the usual clauses about deidentifying the data" and multiple firms offer this service, or is it something that they custom-specified for this "we want the data for AI" transaction?
(The PDF mentions "the standard for deidentification set forth under the California Consumer Privacy Act", which suggests this is all pretty well legislatively understood.)
Seems the answer is “no” to the first part of your question. From the filing:
> For example, one initial bid requested certain customer list information; however, by the first round of the Auction, the most competitive bidders had agreed to bid on an asset schedule that expressly excluded PII.
You wouldn't want to hard-wire the deidentification company's name into the contract between Google and Spirit. Otherwise, if the deident-company happens to go bankrupt or otherwise be unable to do the work then you'd need to re-do the Google-Spirit contract, which would be a massive pain. And you don't want to make "we can sign this with Spirit now" be dependent on "we have first signed the deal with the deident-company". So I think it's reasonable that the contract says "one or more third parties acceptable to or designated by Buyer" rather than being specific here.
it's one regex. if you detect name, DoB, ssn, credit card, email... you remove it. done
there's zero concern if you can associate N flights can only match one person when looked in aggregate, etc.
it's mostly pro forma to pretend you're following some regulation when you're obviously not.
if anyone has a data company and legal connections to demand that a higher level of care be applied, i can charge my hours very cheaply to helpe you make this deal truly anonymous for passengers.
They will definitely be selecting the lowest bidder for this. Or perhaps a more expensive bidder if they can find one whose proprietary scrubbing technology is “a half dozen regexes our intern thought up”.
Well, it was originally created for language learning. With vocabulary there really is so much of it that you're better off learning the stuff that sticks and moving on from the handful of items that just don't. In some other fields you really do need to memorise the whole set of items, but that's just never going to happen for second language vocab.
The other thing about leeches is that they're a sign that you probably want to try to change something about the way you're trying to learn them, because what you're doing now is obviously not working for those things.
This is the way general resolutions in Debian generally work. There's a lot of pre-vote discussion where different people and groups propose and draft their preferred options, to produce what they feel is the best expression of their position. If you can get enough seconders for your proposal it goes on the ballot, with the text you chose and your seconders agreed with. There isn't any requirement for the options to use consistent terminology or avoid overlap, and no overarching editorial process to impose consistency (which would be tricky anyway in cases like this where terminology choices and overall framing can be part of the disagreement between people.)
It's winter if it's noticeably cooler than summer. For instance London's climate has a January average minimum temperature of just under 3C, which is very clearly winter compared to the July minimum of 14C. (figures from Met office site on their Heathrow station.) While the temperature does drop below 0C sometimes, it is not consistently below zero.
In southern England pretty much nobody changes tyres for winter -- you just use the same set all year. Optimising for "2C in the wet" seems about right...
reply