is a “B-movie” now?
Did you not read the article? It was regarded as a B-movie when it came out: a low-budget sci-fi slasher/horror film. Arnold referred to it as a B-movie when asked about it on the set of Conan the Barbarian (which had 3 times the budget as Terminator). The New York Times referred to it as a B-movie in its review, as discussed by this article, which is also why the headline uses quotes around “B-movie.”
I told the magic mirror a thousand times, I never wanted to meet a girl in person! I just wanted a corpse. You can’t disappoint a corpse! I hate you magic mirror!
Yeah, I understand the article to be saying that the Hitachi contract is for the train control system, including the software and equipment necessary for the operation of the train underground. The broader system upgrades include communications systems between trains and stations. At least how I read it.
No, the $212 million includes the entire upgrade (and 20 years of support) of the automatic train control system. The full $700 million plus is for the overall modernization of multiple systems.
pulled right from the fuckin court documents
The “court documents” are filings by the parties. You’re summarizing litigation documents filed by Twitter, in a motion to dismiss, which is a phase of litigation before either side comes forward with any evidence.
The court hasn’t ruled on anything, so you’re just repeating statements that one side has claimed. I’m pointing out that the other side is claiming the opposite.
The suing company isn’t going off anything but fucking assumptions.
They’re not required to come forward with evidence (and litigation procedure doesn’t even give them much of an opportunity to come forward with evidence at this stage). What they have come forward with is literally sealed by the court, so unless you’re leaking confidential court documents you don’t have any idea of what they’re claiming. Take a look at the docket.
If you’re going to be aggressive in this comment section, at least learn the very basics of the thing you’re being aggressive about. It’s clear you don’t know the basics of this type of litigation, so it might help if you show some intellectual humility, take a step back, and let the knowledgeable people actually weigh in, to be able to evaluate the publicly filed documents in an informed way. Whatever it is you’re doing instead, looks pretty bad.
There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, “the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries.”
You’re leaving out that the paragraph you’re summarizing starts off with “X claims that.”
One side says there was a contract. The other side says it wasn’t firmed up yet into a binding contract. Neither side has come forward with their evidence.
Also, Wiwynn is also suing for negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, which don’t require a contract.
recipes are basically an engineering text
I would love to see more systematic recipe formats.
Around 15-20 years ago there was a website called “Cooking for Engineers” that used a table format for recipes that was pretty clever, and a very useful diagram for how to visualize the steps (at least for someone like me). I don’t think he ever updated the site to be mobile friendly but you can see it here:
He describes the recipe in a descriptive way, but down at the bottom it lists ingredients and how they go together in a chart that shows what amounts to use, what ingredients go into a particular step, what that step is, and how the product of that step feeds into the next step.
You’re thinking of indigo.
Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Blue
Violet
That’s 6.
Depends on the topic. From what I can tell, Lemmy skews young and technical and towards certain personalities and interests, so there are going to be topics that go to those strengths, but also topics where the discussions get mired down in either discussing the basics or get stuck in a pretty unsophisticated understanding of the topic.
It’s obvious with the hyper local discussions (where should I eat in this city when I visit), because there just aren’t enough knowledgeable people to form a quorum for quality discussion. But it’s also true in many of the hobby/interest discussions, simply because there aren’t enough people to where good discussion encourages more high quality discussion in a feedback loop.
Partially. I think it’s a good drop in replacement for:
It’s got pretty good coverage of certain topics:
It has a few pockets that work for very specific things:
And it’s just missing a bunch of things I loved on Reddit:
The law falls back to a bunch of hidden rules if the language isn’t explicit.
“No vehicles in the park” is a simple rule, but then poses problems when you have to ask whether that includes baby strollers, regular bicycles, or electric assist bicycles, whether there’s an exception for ambulances in an emergency, etc.
Somewhat famously, there was a case a decade or so ago where someone was prosecuted under Sarbanes Oxley’s obstruction of justice provisions, passed to criminalize Enron-like accounting coverups. The guy was convicted for tossing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution for violating fish and wildlife rules. The statute made it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” a federal investigation. So the Supreme Court had to figure out whether a fish is a “tangible object” in the meaning of the law, when it is clearly a “tangible object” within the normal meaning of the term, but not the type of object that stores records, as everything else described in the criminal statute.
So that just means, in the end, simplicity of language can betray complexity of meaning underneath. Lawyers tend to prefer to make things clear up front so that there’s no uncertainty later on, and that just leads to unreasonably complicated language.
But imagine describing an area in meter•feet instead of square feet or square meters. That could really piss everyone off.
You don’t need an extra document to define each term as it is expected that others in the field will understand the language used.
For lawyers, it’s the opposite, actually. Lawyers are overly cautious and choose to explicitly define terms themselves, all the time. If they can reference a definition already in a specific law, great. But they’ll go ahead and explicitly make that link, instead of relying on the reader to assume they know which law to look up.
So any serious contract tends to use pages and pages of definitions at the beginning.
Imagine programmers being reluctant to use other people’s libraries, but using the same function and variable names with slightly different actual meanings/purposes depending on the program. That’s what legal drafting is like.
I wonder about the discrepancy in the line for Met in Bar or Restaurant though, the 2010 upward trend in that is totally absent in the OP image.
The caption for OP’s image says that stat was “cleaned up” to adjust for people meeting online. That could mean that some survey respondents met online and decided to meet in person in a bar or restaurant, and answered yes to both questions, and that those couples should be counted as “online” only.
Or it could mean they were actively swiping while at a bar or restaurant and looked up to see matches they’ve been recommended.
In earlier generations more people didn’t even go to college. If you’re in the 70% of silent generation that never went to college, you’re certainly not going to meet a spouse there. Especially if you attended a university that was only for one gender.
When I was dating in the late 2000’s and early 2010’s, I remember adding dates as friends on Facebook, somewhere around the first date, specifically to be able to get a sense of their personality/background/interests, and to show off mine, even for people I met in person.
It wasn’t online dating through a dating app, but online presence was still a huge part of the actual process.
Even before that, in the early 2000’s, I remember stuff like AIM profiles that could at least link to photo albums that show off things that you’ve done recently. And even then having always-on broadband Internet, to where we’d be logged into AIM or ICQ, was its own flex.
The number of people who are partnered vs single is 70%. If 60% of those met via dating apps, that’s 42% of the total.
You’re still not slicing thin enough.
If 60% of the couples who got together in 2022 met on dating apps, and people who got together in 2022 constitute 5% of all couples, that’s still possible (and probable), then those couples will still only be 3% of the total. Pretty easy to add up to 11% that way when you start including all the 10-year-old relationships, the 20-year-old relationships, etc.
If it were flat at 60% for all years then no, it wouldn’t add up.
But if you look at the area under the curve, it’s still pretty small comparatively speaking because it’s such a recent phenomenon. (And not every year would actually count equally for the whole data set, but it’s displayed in this chart as every year adding up to 100% for its own year.)
About half of those under 30 (53%) report having ever used a dating site or app
Yes, but that’s a bigger denominator, and includes single people, and even those who have never been on a date. The headline question is what percent of couples met through different methods, not what percent of individuals, including those who are not currently in a couple.
So it doesn’t make sense that more people would have met their current partner through a dating app than have ever used one.
It could be that a higher percent of couples met online than the percent of people who have ever used online dating. If you have a data set where online dating is literally the only way to meet people, but only half of the people are trying that method, you’d have the situation where 100% of couples met online but only 50% of people have ever tried online dating (this hypothetical is purely to demonstrate the math, not claiming that this is in any way a reflection or the actual data).
It’s entirely possible (and I’d argue is likely) that the 53% who have used dating services are more likely to be in couples than the 47% who haven’t. And so that larger subset of the 47% would therefore be excluded in the “percent of couples” data.
mostly I’m just bothered by the apparent lack of any way to confirm the authenticity of the graph and its relationship to the source material
The 2019 paper I’ve linked is authored by the maintainers of the linked data set, and contains a very similar graph with an earlier cutoff (2017 data). I’m sure those authors know their data set. It’s just most of their papers using this data is paywalled, and the data is mainly used for other types of analyses.
If I have time I might be able to download the data set from a computer and just map it either naively or by applying the correct weights.
James Cameron has a history of making great things happen with a low budget, and spending millions responsibly to actually make a positive difference in big budget films.