I think rather he's saying that Musk loudly declared he was slashing government waste and firing do-nothing bureaucrats, and the people who supported him never really bothered to see if that was the case or not.
Hey there, I'm the marketer on this project. I'd love to know which browser version you're on so we can find the right fix. We thoroughly tested on all major browsers but only the more recent versions so surprised that it's broken on Chrome too. Do let me know and we'll take a look. Thanks!
I'm using the most recent version of Chrome unstable and Firefox Developer Edition. I think that what most people in this thread are saying is not that there's are bugs, but that the UX of the website is so nonstandard and so confusing that it feels broken.
Two examples:
- each page ("card"?!) opens in what feels like a modal dialog, but clicking outside of it doesn't close it like with normal dialogs. you must click on the tiny X button.
- Moving between cards is insanely annoying. "Next card" but no "Previous card"?! The mere fact you figured you should add a "Grid view" shows that you realized how bad this is.
my 2 cents: instead of requiring users to do like 10 clicks to go from one PAGE to another, just put the menu on the left side with the title of the different pages and let people move between them with ONE click.
> You essentially can make money buying something.
Well, only if you can earn more over 12 months than the asset you bought depreciated. I think a better way to look at it is that you can earn a small discount.
Fine, but the depreciation is not all that significant. Hypothetically, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying the device with Apple Pay Later for 0% interest, selling it unopened for full (or close to full) value, and making money from arbitrage that way.
As a result, depreciation can be written off, I think, since I would argue if you do buy it and keep it you’ve gotten value from it even if it isn’t cash.
I'm not sure this will fly, or at least I think it depends on the issuer and the law in the particular jurisdiction of the buyer.
I remember reading in the fine print of one issuer of BNPL in my country a statement that the buyer does not have full ownership of the product until after payment of the final installment of the loan has been received and confirmed by the issuer, implying that the product cannot be sold to a third party until the loan has been repaid in full. I am unsure if such a statement has any legal force but buyer beware.
Y'all, the original post was edited, but the quoted bit about being able to make money by buying things was indeed wrong, you don't end up with more money by buying stuff this way. GP seems to have edited their post to talk about buying at a discount instead, as was suggested by this post you're all now bagging on.
Given the same crime, should justice and sentencing be arbitrary or equivalent?
Contextualized to the Nixonian origins of the "war" on "drugs," the US socioeconomic sentencing disparities are the common element linking all drug convictions, from the streets of Baltimore/Camden/Detroit to any one of the Sacklers palatial manors.
If you take "just" to mean "justifiable", sure. That meaning doesn't really make sense in the context of this discussion though, so yes I am invoking one of the definitions related to fairness.
void blah(int &x) { x++; }
int main() {
int *x = NULL;
blah(*x);
}
You can definitely write a smart pointer that more or less provides some kind of guarantee about this (with a combo of runtime checks and typefoo) but references only provide a guarantee that they are not statically initializable to null, which is very different.
Compilers are free to assume x is non-null at the time it’s dereferenced, so isn’t it true by definition? Do you have an example that doesn’t rely on undefined behavior?
"Compilers are free to assume" is a fine thing for like, a loop, but the compiler isn't free to assume you didn't mean to dereference the reference in the code snippet I posted, it's just free to not check before it does.
So it will crash, whether that's undefined behaviour or not. The thing at issue here is that other languages have reference types that are more strictly statically guaranteed to be non-null. My point is that references are not a substitute for those, because holding them wrong is not only easy, it's extremely likely to happen in code of any reasonable complixity that mixes pointers and references (ie. almost all production C++ code).
Well, sure, because the beachball means the main thread is hung, and that can happen for many reasons unrelated to memory pressure.