The annoying thing is that the credit cards fully support authorizing for some amount likely to cover the transaction and using the same transaction to capture so no lingering auth sits around.
If a merchant has captured the funds and still has a hold sitting around the someone has implemented something wrong.
Well, to each their own. I think you might be mistaking a loud speaking voice and a strong queens accent for hostility. He's smiling for most of it, answers the question in several lays of sophistication, connects it to other physical phenomenon and explains why it's difficult to answer directly.I went back and watched it since it's been quite a while and I didn't recall hostility and I still don't see it.
Why do you assume the magnet interview wasn't flattering? His legacy is more complicated than he conveyed, and he definitely has some dark portions, but he actually was an extremely gifted mind, a renowned educator and acclaimed scientist.
It's a matter of priorities. A large portion of Linux users don't actually care about adoption. They're not selling the os, so the docs aren't designed for anyone who isn't already a user.
Valve on the other hand is paying people for documentation and good ux. That's enough to significantly boost the quality.
It's even still a valid course of action if there's literally no interest in making the world better.They've potentially found a way to make their nearly omnipresent e-commerce platform share a name with the operating system, which is coincidentally mostly developed by others. They get to associate their name with a few tens of billions of dollars of development effort for a fraction of the cost.
To be clear, this isn't bad or anything. It's quite literally what a lot of the people doing all that legwork want. It just doesn't require any altruism from valve. They make money selling games, and they sell more games when people think it's easier to play them. A desktop with the ease of a console is a big selling point for a lot of people.
I thought the same thing about the steam deck and it turned out to be entirely fine.This is basically cutting the screen out of a steamdeck so I'm pretty excited for a good controller.
I thought the same thing, but per it's suggestion I tried using it for fine tuning on the steam deck and I was pleasantly surprised. I'd never use it for for large motions, but on a game designed with mouse motion in mind it can be a little tricky to get those fine motions locked in.I tried with portal and it made it a lot easier to get little adjustments lined up that were tricky without it. Since it exclusively kicked in when I wanted it to it wasn't as wacky as a lot of gyro controls are for games that focus on them, and I think it was as simple as "press your thumb a bit more roundly onto the joystick".
It's not going to supplant the mouse for fast precise motions, but it at least means you can skip the wild overcorrection that sometimes happens with joystick on unoptimized configurations.
And they clarify that you can choose to have them not do that.
They don't. They're saying they don't have it.
It's because people looked at a line of a diff without looking at the actual context.It's like finding the line in a diff where someone deleted a call to "check password" and concluding that this means the service is no longer verifying passwords.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.
Basically, they consolidated and clarified their data privacy policies to be legally accurate. People took a content change to be a policy change on the assumption that you can't just delete words in one place and put new ones somewhere else.
Yup. The actual sources of world hunger aren't material but systemic. So it's not as easy as just "giving everyone food", but the more complicated "give everyone access to a robust agriculture supply chain".Fortunately, giving 1-2% of people fertilizer and some work animals might be a bit more complicated, it's significantly cheaper.
Honestly? If it's what gets people to be fed, I'm okay with doing it because people starving is bad for the economy.I'd rather we did at least the bare minimum for the right reason, but I'll accept the wrong reason. At this point, hoping for more than the bare minimum seems unrealistic when we're most likely to get the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
It's really not new age reconning, the old testament literally has angels and other quasi devine entities in it. It's not that they thought the foreign gods were demons, it's that they had stories from their own religion that involved other gods.Previously, it was common for nations and tribes to have their own God that they worshipped.A segment of the Israelites believed that their national diety was best God, but not only God, because that would be silly. Everyone know El, Ashera, Yahweh and Marduk all exist, but Yahweh is first amongst the pantheon, or that Yahweh was actually the same as the other god but just used a different name for reasons.When political strife broke out with Babylon that sect gained prominence and shifted towards monotheism as a rejection and denunciation of the Babylonian gods, both as a middle finger to Babylon and as a bolstering of national identity: preserve the culture by saying it's not just that this is your God, or that's it's the best God, but that it's the only God.The difficult part is the thousand years of stories and belief making it extremely clear that there are other deities. So those stories warped and recontextualized those gods as evil gods or lesser good gods, errr... Demons and angels. A perfect, all powerful, all knowing god who created everything has special helpers to do things for him and has an adversary who is somehow able to resist him, but is also a companion, or a betrayal. Baal. Or is is baelzebub? Samael? Satan? It's so tricky to keep track of which came from early Judaism and which is a syncretism from a neighboring religion.
You slightly underestimate how broad the world of the Israelites was. They lived in tribes, but those tribes had a diety different from a neighbor tribe that they still recognized as "them". Different households would have their own God, and the nation as a whole had a patron God. They lived in areas with enough traffic and people that other gods wasn't a weird notion. Their interactions with Babylon are a significant recognized historical occurrence, and Babylon had a population of more than 200,000 by modern estimates during the relevant time period.
It's confusing to say that it's ignoring the social control aspect of religion to recognize that they weren't monotheistic at the time the ten commandments became part of the religious canon. It took a thousand years for them to switch from a subset of the Canaanite religion to a distinct monotheistic one.The purpose wasn't to stop people from making their own gods, it was to stop people from saying any of them were better than Yahweh. It is not a subtle set of rules.
It's a coherent argument built on the flawed premise that the interpretation of the text as applied to modern Judaism is the same as it was applied to the proto-judaism of 3500 years ago. We have ample evidence that it would not have, and that time has changed the interpretation and, in some cases, the actual words, like the written form of Yahweh that would be pronounceable in their language being changed to an honorific and subsequently lost to time.
It's less to stop worshipping fake gods, or asserting they're monotheistic, it's a directive to stop saying any God is "better" than Yahweh. At the start, it was a religion based on worship of Yahweh as the foremost diety, and eventually that started to include taking attributes from the other deity's in the pantheon, and eventually saying they weren't really gods, but spirits, demons or angels. Lesser devine entities strictly below Yahweh. Add in a couple centuries of linguistic drift and religious practice and you've got yahwehs name being replaced with "the LORD" in many places to avoid invoking the special power of names, and his name becoming your word for deity, making translation an absolute mess.It's not linguistic trickery to cast the "no other gods before me" as being a polytheistic belief. At the time it was and they only thought one god was worthy of worship.
It depends on which type of ai upscaling is being used.Some are basically a neural net that understands how pixelation works with light, shadow, and color gradients and can work really well. They leave the original pixels intact, figure out the best guess for the gaps using traditional methods and then correct the guesses using feedback from the neural net.Others are way closer to "generate me an image that looks exactly the same as this one but had three times the resolution". It uses a lot more information about how people look (in photos it was trained on) than just how light and structure interact.
The former is closer to how your brain works. Shadow and makeup can be separated because you (in the squishy level, not consciously) know shadows don't do that, and the light reflection hints at depth and so on.The latter is more concerned with fixing "errors", which might involve changing the original image data if it brings the total error down, or it'll just make up things that aren't there because it's plausible.
Inferring detail tends to look nicer, because it's using information that's there to fil the gaps. Generating detail is just smearing in shit that fits and tweaking it until it passes a threshold of acceptability.The first is more likely to be built into a phone camera to offset a smaller lens. The second is showing up a lot more to "make your pictures look better" by tweaking them to look like photos people like.
Nope, this one is real, just weird looking people and poorly upscaled.
News article from 2016: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/11/obamacare-repeal-republicans-president-obama-veto-health-column/78597014/
Original image:
Reference portion that was particularly mangled:
Mangled, but still recognizable as just .... Funny looking people.
Except for this guy:
He doesn't seem to have been mangled at all. Just looks real weird.
You do know that no one made them switch terms right? The people doing it and using the term decided to change it because it made it more clear when they were talking to each other.Since you hadn't encountered the idea before, I don't think they're super concerned about their sex lives being easy to explain to you. Your opinion isn't super relevant to other people's sexual preferences or the words they use to talk about it to each other.
It would actually do next to nothing if the entire supply were vanished right now. There's about $300 billion in pennies in circulation. Around $850 per American, or roughly four days of average individual consumer spending.The economy as a whole does on the order of 10s of trillions of dollars of activity a day.Eliminating every penny would be less than a 1% reduction in liquidity, and even smaller in terms of actual use.