Yes. In this case, it represents "teaching" the compiler something it didn't previously "know" about. But wanted to connect that to whether the computed output of a language could ever be falsifiable, i.e. we would not know it happened.
It would be interesting if someone could do a deep dive into what solar would cost if forced labour was taken out and all workers were paid a fair wage. Would it still be super competitive?
If someone could show that paying a fair wage to workers would still leave solar compellingly cheap then it might incentivise some parts of the supply chain to clean up their act. That's "if" of course.
Yes. The US Department of Commerce has been litigating this every year for over a decade, with a deep dive into what kinds of "subsidies" the top Chinese solar producers might be receiving, including deeply implausible kinds of subsidies, and as I recall one of the "subsidies" they were supposedly receiving was that their employees assembling solar panels were working for lower wages than electronics assembly employees in Indonesia. These investigations, carried out under a "guilty until proven innocent" standard (called "adverse inference in selecting from the facts otherwise available") end up with a quantitative "countervailing duty" to apply to compensate for the "subsidies" as precisely as possible.
You can be certain that forced labor would be considered a "subsidy", although I don't recall ever having seen it mentioned in these filings, so my inference is that it's not a significant factor.
The last one I examined in any detail was https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/11/2023-14..., which imposed a 10.33% countervailing duty on Jinko panels, a 14.27% countervailing duty on Risen panels, and a 12.61% countervailing duty on all other PRC panels. This was enough to ensure that under 1% of panels sold in the US were Chinese solar panels.
But we're talking about competitiveness with fossil fuels here, which are about 200% more expensive than solar power, not 14.27%.
You appear to have misunderstood what happened. It was her management team that thought it was in bad taste. They then got the lawyers to draft a letter. The lawyers weren't acting "supposedly on their clients behalf", they were doing exactly what their clients asked them to do - which is their job. In this case, it was the management team that was acting "supposedly on their clients behalf" and who needed to chill out.
That's a real shame to hear. Many years ago I took over the running of a website that was hosted on Rackspace, and their support really was great. We rarely had problems, but when things did go wrong they always resolved it really quickly.
Facebook mobile tip: if you click on the burger menu and select "Feeds" you will be taken to a page with a list of different feeds at the top. If you then select the "Friends" tab you will see only posts from your friends. Doesn't get rid of ads, unfortunately, but it does get rid of all the crap from recommended pages, etc...
>Facebook could provide you options to only see friend's content. People have certainly asked for it. They absolutely refuse to.
What are you talking about? On the app, click on the burger menu and select feeds. You will then have a page with get feeds. Song the top you will see "Friends". Select that to see only stuff your friends have posted.
Facebook has loads of options to curate your feed. Lots of people are too lazy or stupid to find them.
What you're link refers to seems to be a different way to get to the feed that has been around for ages. The feed I described has been around for over a year (I can't remember when I first found out about it, but it was a long time ago).
