The article has the sentence "No high-tech gates block the exit if you go through the line like normal" in the paragraph before the reddit reference.
The "journalist" can't remember what they wrote ten seconds ago, can't read their own text, or is repeating stupid and incorrect claims to make their boring article seem less pointless. I'm going with the first option.
An increase in sales of 28% for the ioniq 5 (the one that has a 63% drop for october).
For Aug-Oct +40%.
For Jul-Oct +47%.
Jul was the first month that spiked up, they can handle a few more bad months. But obviously the end of a credit is going to reduce sales.
Sales up by 152% (compared with the same month the year boefore) the month before a tax credit expires. Sales down 63% (compared with the same month the year boefore) the month after. As anyone with at least one brain cell would expect to happen.
+5072 sales in september, -2856 in october.
That data doesn't show that, so it says nothing.
That is why all scientific publications are made via podcast. And all SEC filings are done in the form of podcasts.
They don't have the money and haven't shown any hint of a way AI can make money in the first place. They just promise ever increasing circular agreements (nvidia will invest billions in openAI, so openAI can buy billion in nvidia chips, etc) and hope private equity will keep flowing...
Am I pretending words don't have their meanings and lying if I say "it's raining cats and dogs" when in fact the heavy rain is water?
"that's a piece of cake" when clearly the request has nothing to do with cake and is no a piece of one?
Or is it that you can't just take the literal meaning of isolated words and pretend that's what statements mean.
What hours did that lawyer bill for writing that brief?
It's almost like at one point it was a novel virus that was spreading like wildfire, that we didn't know how to treat well, didn't have the medical resources available if severe cases spiked too high, didn't understand the transmission characteristics well, and so were cautious.
Whereas, now we have vaccines, we have anti-virals, everyone has already been exposed (making it not a novel virus anymore), we failed to contain it and it is now well along the way to being endemic, and thus you treat it very differently.
They send more spam and thus more people click "this is spam" and the urls/lanaguage/etc that they use become indicative of spam (as judged by users).
That seems much more likely than google manually filtering republican spam.
I know managers at work sometimes ask to be added to automated mailing lists for technical things (disks are >X% full type stuff) and refuse to believe they won't want it when told what it will be. And then click "spam" on gmail and now the email address being used for them gets diverted to spam for the people who actually do care about those emails and I get to spend hours working out what the hell is happening. That's not google manually filtering out those emails...
Companies can't go to jail, so that's obvious.
He will 100% be deported when he completes his prison sentence, and could be deported before completing it (low chance of illegal re-entry from China after all) under the current administration.
The four years in prison might "save" him, it's not an aggravated felony and it's not moral turpitude, so it won't be automatic. Maybe there will be a pendulum swing away from enforcing the letter of the law and deporting easy targets at every opportunity (nothing is easier than someone already incarcerated - even the most keystone cop of ICE agents can catch them). Even so, seems a likely candidate even then.
I guess people are stupid, but california is not the place to do that. Electricity is expensive (relative to most other US states) and tiered.
>> "Yeah, on purpose I assume. It's almost like those symbols have a use and indicate what fundamental type is in play."
> Seems you do not program in Perl. Because: they don't imply that. They imply what type you want to get OUT of the hash or list. Otherwise you would simply write #myHash{"myKey"} and be done with it. But that is to simple
That's literally what I said. It tells you the fundamental type that is in play (you know, what the thing you are working with is). $F{"a"} is a scalar, so $. %F is a hash, so %. @F is an array, so @.
That would make you evidence of "hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States" itself.
How dare you not feed our tech companies with your data! That is unamerican!
If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner
