Not only is that headline's grammar exceptional(ly bad), for a moment I thought the developer of Control was named Alan Wake. Like, how did they manage to butcher that so badly?
Kayana
Because you don't need to have significant experience or rent a VPS in order to do that, and I can respect that. We don't need to force FOSS developers to become proficient in everything.
What needs to happen is some kind of tool (ideally FOSS) that lets you spin up an actual forum with the same difficulty to set it up as Discord.
But is the letter facing the direction, or are you looking in the direction if you're looking at the letter? So, is East behind the camera or in front of it?
Huh, TIL. Regarding your edit, that amount wasn't the cumulated cost of whatever Limewire were distributing, that would be idiotic indeed; rather the RIAA tried to call for a ruling that somehow those guys were causing $150,000 in damages - per instance. Now the article unfortunately doesn't state how they possibly tried to justify that number, and I can't be bothered to research that myself. Another thing that would interest me is how the plaintiff expected them to pay with almost every dollar on Earth.
So while I don't think this had anything to do with "lost sales", I do agree with the possible fines and damage calculations not being fit for any sort of realistic purpose at all.
Because I didn't know absurdism, I read the second one differently at first:
[The] nothing matters.
And I immediately had to think of this gem:
"But it doesn't do anything!" - "No, it does nothing."
Depending on the stuffing, I might actually rather take the seat, just because it's got armrests.
Mein Straßenverkehrsamt tendiert dazu, bei Leuten mit nur einem Namen in ihrem (bspw. indischen) Pass einfach den Namen als Vor- und Nachnamen zu nehmen, sodass bei ihnen dann auf dem Führerschein steht... Nur, weil die deutsche Bürokratie nicht mit nur einem Namen klarkommt.
But you just completely ignored everything I said in that comment.
Mathematically, that is precisely how O notation works, only (as I've mentioned) we don't use it like that to get meaningful results. Plus, when looking at time, we can actually use O notation like normal, since computers can indeed calculate something for infinity.
Still, you're wrong saying that isn't how it works in general, which is really easy to see if you look at the actual definition of O(g(n)).
Oh, and your computer crashing is a thing that could happen, sure, but that actually isn't taken into account for runtime analysis, because it only happens with a certain chance. If it would happen after precisely three days every time, then you'd be correct and all algorithms would indeed have an upper bound for time too. However it doesn't, so we can't define that upper bound as there will always be calculations breaking it.
It's very pedantic, but he does have a point. Similar to how you could view memory usage as O(1) regardless of the algorithm used, just because a computer doesn't have infinite memory, so it's always got an upper bound on that.
Only that's not helpful at all when comparing algorithms, so we disregard that quirk and assume we're working with infinite memory.
Wow, writing the same paragraphs three times... What an abomination of an article.
Cookies required for the website to work (like that one) are totally fine and, in fact, they don't even have to ask you about them - if they're not used for tracking. So no, asking each time is definitely avoidable.