Considering you can finetune all current in use facial match systems for kyc from pretty much useless to will match even a dog i am not surprised at all by this and surprised it is even remotely allowed.
Not really. The lower tiers are only less efficient on platforms that require purchase through an app store or other payment processor that takes a large cut. Buying through a gift card or through the Roblox website or non-Microsoft Store PC app gives more Robux for the same price <https://www.roblox.com/upgrades/robux>. These increased rates are also balanced to prevent the lower tiers from being less efficient: the package for 800 goes to 1000, whereas 10 000 goes to 11 000.
It's an actual story telling method, molded into a supposed to be informative article with a bunch of "please make it interesting" sprinkled on top of it. These day known as the what's left of the internet.
After a minute near one of their offices I do. Macs are either randomized per session, which makes filtering on them pointless, or they are not and still broadcast making them non secure and easily spoofed. Relying on mac filtering is usually only an audit checkbox to check. There is a reason 3 letter agencies used to use them to track people as they are really easy to get and track (until they got randomized by phone manufacturers and OS's).
I always find it interesting employers only look at the short term benefits. Generally employment safety laws dampen income rise over time so for an employer it is cheaper to hold on to someone than hire a new, which also lessens knowledge loss.
That isn't to their long term benefit. A similar argument would be that consumers should be aiming for an economy like South Sudan. GDP per capita of around $400/annum. Consumers like to minimise spending and so if the South Sudanese only spend a few hundred dollars a year on average that must be great for them...
The thing the low wages argument misses is that employers don't actually want to minimise labour spending, they optimise by increasing budget for labour all the time. They want to minimise wasteful and unproductive labour spending. If people will take less money, they'll offer less money. If a role doesn't add value, they'll cut the role. If a role is adding money on the margins though, they're enthusiastic about hiring more people even if the wages paid are a bit higher, because it is a win-win situation where the workers make more money and the business makes more profit.
Long story short - it isn't at all clear that low wages driven by hiring impediments are a long term win for businesses. It might just be a lose-lose situation where they happen to offer a worse deal to workers as a byproduct of being unable to maximise their profits.
For international through Germany we used to get 100% back after four hour delays but they stopped doing that ... For obvious reasons. I traveled for free multiple times in the (long) past. Also fun of you wanted to get more back: if you had a first class ticket and reserved seat and had to switch trains and re-reserved you would get a free ticket with a stamp price for about 5 euro. Which you could ask back. So you got at least a coffee for free.
If you actually took a train in the last 3 years you would know that the process is know online via the App/Website, and everything is already filled out for you
Isn't high grade SSD storage pretty much a memory layer as well these days as the difference is no longer several orders of magnitude in access time and thoughput but only one or two (compared to tha last layer of memory)?
Optane was supposed to fill the gap but Intel never found a market for this.
Flash is still extremely slow compared to ram, including modern flash, especially in a world where ram is already very slow and your cpu already keeps waiting for it.
That being said, you should consider ram/flash/spinning to be all part of a storage hierarchy with different constants and tradeoffs ( volatile or not, big or small , fast or slow etc ), and knowing these tradeoffs will help you design simpler and better systems.
reply