probably highly dependent on your work environment:
it's the exact opposite at our office...
head>desk
yeah, took me a sec to figure out what they were talking about too...
username of the commenter below the pics
yes, that's why it's called fingerprinting:
it's a kind of mathematical function that takes the entire code as input and outputs a unique result.
the result is just some string of symbols (which really just represent a unique string of 1's and 0's).
this unique string of characters is, as mentioned, unique for any given input.
this string can then be compared to any arbitrary other string, and if they match, then you know it's the same code.
so in the case of signal anybody can download the source, compile it, and verify that it matches the fingerprint of the compiled code on their own device.
that's why it can't be faked: you compare the already compiled code.
if even a single digit of the code is out of place, it's not going to result in the same string, and thus immediately get flagged as a mismatch.
it's mathematically impossible to fake.
yeah, alright then:
you are arguing from ignorance, ask for evidence, then reject said evidence in the first paragraph instead of reading the entire thing because of a boilerplate disclaimer (which you of course do not understand to be boilerplate).
you read the executive summary, even though you asked for the methodology, which is explained in the studies linked under the sources of the article.
you need to click through to the actual study to see the methodology.
the link i provided is just a summary of multiple studies.
the studies lack this disclaimer, which was added by factually, probably for legal reasons, not because the data is faulty.
since you're apparently too lazy to even click the links already pointing to the exact information you asked for, here's the abstract of the NBER/Stanford paper (most relevant part at the end highlighted):
This paper examines the impact of the UK's decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) in 2016. Using almost a decade of data since the referendum, we combine simulations based on macro data with estimates derived from micro data collected through our Decision Maker Panel survey. These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process. Comparing these with contemporary forecasts – providing a rare macro example to complement the burgeoning micro-literature of social science predictions – shows that these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade
from the CEPR/VoxEU article (already in plain language and easy to read):
So, taking all this together, what’s the bottom line? First, the public is right. Brexit has damaged the UK economy. But, inevitably, the mechanisms and hence the impacts have been considerably more complex than economists could incorporate in macroeconomic or trade models, with their inevitably simplifying assumptions. To simplify hugely, however, it would be reasonable to say that the impact on trade overall has been broadly consistent with predictions so far, that on immigration much less negative (and perhaps even positive) and on investment somewhat worse.
so, yes, brexit has been bad for the UK economy. definitely, without question.
what IS still in question is how bad exactly it was.
THAT'S were the uncertainty is.
whether or not it was detrimental has been answered with abundant certainty: it was bad.
maybe check the actual papers i linked?
all the sources, including their methodology and their conclusions are linked.
that's why i chose an article that aggregates multiple studies, from multiple countries, including the UK, as the provided evidence.
it's all explained in the paper; go read it.
if we only ever look at past data, and never compare that data to alternative scenarios, then it gets really difficult to make better decisions in the future.
in circumstances where the sample size is naturally limited to just 1, it is necessary to perform simulations in order to gain insight into the outcome of any given event. there's not really any other way to do this.
what you call "wank estimates" (very scientific, thank you) is a collection of well established research methodologies that have been used with great success in both predicting future outcomes and analyzing past outcomes.
this is evidence. it provides mathematical certainty, in this case about brexit.
this is factual evidence, not simply "wank estimates".
and the evidence suggests that the UK economy would be significantly better off without brexit.
this is simply fact.
that the UK economy did mostly fine on its own is not relevant, because that's not the point.
the point is, that it would have been better for the economy, if the UK had remained.
yeah, nah, brexit did have a major negative Impact on the UK economy:
Taken together, independent assessments paint a consistent picture: Brexit has reduced UK GDP (estimates commonly span roughly 2–8% to date, with central academic estimates clustering around 6–8% by 2025), slashed business investment (commonly estimated down 12–18% by mid‑2020s and in some scenarios far larger over decades), and trimmed productivity (roughly 3–4% in many studies and up to 4% in OBR scenarios), and they identify trade frictions, uncertainty and misallocation as core drivers—facts that point to policy levers on trade facilitation, investment incentives and productivity reforms if the UK seeks to narrow the gap with its peers [2] [4] [1] [3].
damn near all economy experts agree on a negative, long-term impact fo the UK economy. they just can't be entirely sure how bad it was, just that it was quite bad.
single digit percentage points don't sound too bad, but when it's entire percentage points pf an entire economy that actually works out to billions in lost economic activity.
the stats you provided do not show any comparison to a no-brexit/remain scenario, which is what should be compared.
they kind of are (from Wikipedia, too lazy to look up the government source):
The non-EU member states of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland participate in the single market but not in the customs union.
Switzerland and Norway actually ARE "in the EU". at least more so than the UK.
they are both Schengen countries.
there are multiple levels of EU membership, and the UK has none.
that's why those two are included and the UK is not.
that's literally not how any of this works...
if it's just gaming, consider a side-grade to bazzite:
it's an atomic fedora distro (even has a dedicated Nvidia installer), meaning it's more difficult to break and easier to rollback when it breaks!
and it has a bunch of gaming related tools pre-installed, which is helpful, but not the main selling point imo.
anyways, yeah, linux gaming is really, REALLY easy these days!
you need hornier friends XD
telegram is the absolute wirst when it comes to constant spam from scams and bullshit group chats... it's an utter cesspool.
if you're going for a gaming distro, do yourself a favor and go with bazzite!
it's kind of the unofficial SteamOS for desktop and has a general philosophy of "it just works", comes preloaded with basically all relevant gaming communities!
prism is in the app store, bazaar, and literally just a click to install ;)
the problem here is that this is in a university setting.
the student has almost certainly been made aware of what "discussion" means.
i explained in a different comment (check my profile if the link doesn't work, not sure how to properly link comments...) why this is not a sufficient excuse.
because the previous comment seemed well received, I'll try to give another example of how this sort of course might generally play out:
at a typical university you'll get some general orientation at the beginning of the first semester. this will include things like the rules for exams, the rules for the campus, the rules for the dorms (if there are any), the rules for general conduct and behavior on-campus, and a ton of other shit like safety drills in case of a fire or other catastrophe, laboratory training (if relevant), and on and on. there's a LOT to cover in the first few weeks. you'll probably sign a bunch of forms that say "i have read the rules" in legalese, so that there is proof that you have been made aware of the rules.
this orientation will include, or be closely followed by, a class on scientific work.
this course will cover the scientific method, scientific literature, scientific citations (in the specific style of your field and university), the formatting of all your submissions (there's usually a template you are supposed to use, though this is somewhat dependant on the teacher of any given class.)
there will also be sections on scientific language: the difference between a scientific theory and a "theory" in casual language, what a scientific paper really is and how to tell the difference between a high quality and a low quality paper (or if the paper is just complete nonsense.), and so forth.
this is were the student in the OP almost certainly learned how the assignment given was supposed to be written.
there's literally entire classes for this specific thing.
and yeah, that's because it's actually difficult to do properly!
there's nothing "unfair", or "unexpected", or "insufficiently clear" about this work assignment.
it can seem that way to someone who hasn't been to university, but to everyone who has, it's clear as day.
there is never a need to point out things like "you need to use proper citations in your work", or "you need to follow the scientific method", because this has already been covered and is then expected in damn near every assignment afterwards.
it's the expected standard.
so there are two possibilities here:
either the student hasn't absorbed the material of the previously mentioned class, and just kinda winged it, hoping for the best, and is thus simply an exceedingly bad scientist, which means the failure was entirely deserved.
...or they did it on purpose, and the failure was entirely deserved.
my money is definitely on the latter.
TL;DR:
she damn well knew this submission would be disqualified.
because all students know this.
it's literally the scientific method, and thus one of the very first things they teach you at university.
hope this clears up why none of this is explicitly mentioned in the assignment, but feel free to ask more questions!
the evidence is: this is a university course.
this is normal for every university in the world. everyone that's ever taken a university course knows this.
it's quite literally the scientific method.
it's almost never spelled out anywhere, because students generally have dedicated courses that teach this method and related things like researching, proper citations, writing structures and styles, etc.
usually called something like "scientific working" or something (don't know what it's called in english, german is usually something like "wissenschaftliches arbeiten").
this isn't kindergarten; there are prerequisites and they are expected by default.
these aren't children, they're adults.
and everyone involved knew this in advance.
this is not "hidden" or "secret".
it's a standard.
oooohhh....yeah....about those...
turns out the mosquito nets are devastating local fish populations, because people use them to fish, since they get them as a finished product instead of having to knit nets themselves. and starvation being a bigger immediate threat, they prioritize that over malaria.
the nets are also laced with toxic chemicals (against the mosquitoes), which are extremely toxic to fish.
they also have much smaller holes, so they catch the young offspring as well, leading to rapid depletion of stocks.
so, yeah...good idea in theory, but didn't turn out so great...