Your last point is the stronger one. Live events, including sports, are a heavy driver of these subscriptions.
Another is broadband deployment. Choice is low in many parts of the country, and bundled service offerings are frequently priced near the "internet only" offerings to nudge customers into a "might as well" posture.
In various sectors, you need to be able to explain why you/your-system did what it did. Exchange Act Rule 15c3-5 is probably the most relevant in financial circles:
Note: I am neither a lawyer nor in financial circles, but I do have an interest in the effects of market design and regulation as we get into a more deeply automated space.
Probably something like this would be close to the same colloquial meaning (I'm not familiar with any pants-shitting slang in French):
EncroChat leur a foutu les jetons de ouf.
Well, this is THE Bay Area, where we live in THE city, drive on THE 101, and eat in THE Chinatown.... wait...
Funny enough, though, it wasn't until I moved here 15+ years ago that it struck me how odd it is to call it "the Bay Area" and expect people to know what that means. Nonetheless, sportscasters do it. Musicians do it. All other bay areas are just areas around bays...
It could've solved the task instead of being wrong and spitting nonsense tho.
This is orthogonal to the style, still, if it realizes that it can use Python's arbitrary precision integers instead of floats then the problem becomes absolutely trivial. Fast, and numerically stable.
The shop will. It can be a lot of money in aggregate. It also creates really pathological purchasing incentives, where spreading out large purchases over several small purchases can yield significant savings for the purchaser.
There's one exceedingly simple answer:
Keep the penny (possibly a new one that is cheaper to make).
We're basically breaking into jail on this one, creating more problems than we're solving.
Hi from Argentina! Here we unofficially deprecated the AR$10, AR$20 and AR$50 bill, so the smallest one is the AR$100 bill (~US$0.07). Every price include taxes.
What are they selling? Candies one by one? Inside the candy store everything is rounded to a multiple of AR$100. A single candy is AR$100. You many get an offer of 3 candies for AR$200, or 2 small candies for AR$100, or other fancy candies in packages of 13 for AR$1000. Everything else is more expensive, like AR$700 or more, but all multiples of AR$100.
The photocopy shop near my home has a copy for AR$120. They usually sell many copies, so a 20% is relevant. They have a stash of AR$20, but it's probably the only shop nearby. I also collect the AR$20 just to pay the photocopies, just to be nice to avoid finishing their stash and also because I don't know what to do with the AR$20.
I guess a single apple is probably a problem. It cost like AR$400-AR$500 depending on the weight. Someone very smart can learn to choose and apple with the exact weight to get a AR$499 apple and pay AR$400 :) Luckily inflation changes the price so it's difficult to learn. Also AR$499 will be illegaly rounded to AR$500. And most people will buy more than 1 apple, let's say that the total is AR$10,000 and AR$100 is only a 1% that is lower than the spoilage of rotten fruit.
“For all the history of computational mathematical visualization, graphing equations has been done in binary mode...”
Intentional or not, the linked article opens with a comically untrue statement, that, because it is verifiably false, doesn't even escape as puffery. When I encounter this sort of grandstanding in framing (generally from junior engineers or fresh-from-school product managers), I spell out just how negatively such misstatements harm the point being made.
It's a turn-off for readers, and it's unnecessary.
"You may be used to seeing graphs like..."
or
"In grade school, we learned to graph like..."
would probably be more useful than dismissal of the history of visualization of implicit functions. Hopefully, next time, the author will be a bit less grandiose.
If the URL is your state container, it also becomes a leakage mechanism of internals that, at the very least, turns into a versioning requirement (so an old bookmark won’t break things). That also means that there’s some degree of implicit assumption with browsers and multi-browser passing. At some point, things might not hold up (Authentication workflows, for example).
That said, I agree with the point and expose as much as possible in the URL, in the same way that I expose as much as possible as command line arguments in command line utilities.
But there are costs and trade offs with that sort of accommodation. I understand that folks can make different design decisions intentionally, rather than from ignorance/inexperience.
It's possible to be exposed to, and understand, high end things. I've had $2000+ bottles of wine, listened to music on $100k+ speakers, driven $500k+ cars, seen Keith Jarrett Trio at Montreux, had cat-shit coffee, etc.
And I'm perfectly happy listening to Toxic by Britney Spears on phone speakers while drinking Miller High Life on a sunny day in the park, hopping in a banged up Miata to rip a donut in a parking lot.
Don't let fear of "spoiling" things keep you from ever growing your experiences. People tend to have a gravity for the things that matter to them.
And don't let knowledge of fancy things keep you from finding joy in the basics.
Another is broadband deployment. Choice is low in many parts of the country, and bundled service offerings are frequently priced near the "internet only" offerings to nudge customers into a "might as well" posture.
reply