Yeah I was there. Some people may think it's just the norm in the old times. It's not. It's just Apple obsession with being "user friendly", and for some reason, they think Gui is more friendly for programmers than code.
It did work though, the developer drain from MS to Apple around that time was massive. They were giving easy tools to low-skill developers, and command-line access to high-skill developers, a win-win. Whereas MS around that time was busy overcomplicating Visual Studio in their quest to merge web and desktop development for lock-in purposes.
I have been traveling with a Filmguard bag. Sometimes they take it out and ask for a hand inspection, sometimes they don't they rarely insist on scanning the films themselves outside the bag.
Regardless never check-in your films. Nothing can protect them from the powerful scan for check-in luggages.
When a TSA x-ray operator sees an opaque bag on the screen, he/she just turns up the exposure until the contents are visible. Not much help there for your film.
Turning up the exposure on the screen does not do what you think it does.
With a line-scan X-ray, the bag is well out of the beam path by the time the operator sees the image. But it's probably coming in through a 12 or 16-bit ADC, so there's a lot more range than can be effectively displayed on screen (at least with a simple linear+gamma mapping). It's a matter of adjusting the display mapping to see inside denser objects.
The X-ray source power needs to be high enough to deal with the worst case scenario of large/dense luggage. If you can give your film a 10x lower dose while still allowing enough X-rays through that the operator can clear it, that sounds like a good idea.
It just has to be traded off against the fact that deliberate shielding is likely to be frowned upon, and they may take the film out and run it through "naked" anyway. Seems worth a try, but I'd definitely use a commercial product marked for the purpose and resist the temptation to DIY it.
According to [1] the average US adult watches 4 hours 10 minutes of live TV per day. Personally that comes as a surprise to me - but I would expect Nielsen to know a thing or two about surveying TV viewership.
I mean, is it bad? This is everyone I know back home. They go to work, come home, eat, and watch TV. It's a life. It's not for me, but like, what else are they going to do with their time? I could make a bunch of value-judgement statements like "they should read a book!" or "they should learn python!" but like, why? Who cares? They don't have ambitions beyond a comfortable life.
Just as my life is not for them, their life is not for me. At least they have some way to entertain themselves, whereas every second I spend relaxing comes with anxiety over whether I'm spending my time "usefully."
> I mean, is it bad? This is everyone I know back home. They go to work, come home, eat, and watch TV. It's a life.
If you believe your origin and your destiny are agent-less and meaningless, then it makes the most sense to call everything in the middle meaningless also. Thus - eat, drink, watch TV, have fun till it's over. I can see that making sense.
But if life and its pursuits have any shred of meaning, then I think it's OK to say they could be doing better things with their time.
You and I agree, for our own lives. I derive meaning from my agency.
For some reason, though, there are a shitload of people out there that don't have this ambition. I understand difficulty empathizing with it, because to people like you and me it does look like a "waste of time." But for some reason it really is just ideal for a lot of people to be able to switch their brain off and sit comfortably in front of a TV and be entertained.
For these people, you could argue "you should be doing something better with your time," but all you'd get back is "why? This is comfortable."
The article claims nearly 4.5 hours per day. I find that hard to believe... I don't know any children (in my admittedly biased sample) that watch more than an hour or two.
I know families who literally leave a tv on for the kids 24/7. It's on during meals, it's on during the day, it's there as they are getting ready for bed. Just constantly on and droning away.
I cannot understand that behavior. Even an hour or two a day seems like a lot for a kid to me.
Not suprising to be honest. In middleschool and highschool I would stay up even later. Wake up for school at 7, get there by 8, class till 3, after school activity till 5 or 6, done with dinner by 7, two hours or so of half assed work (takes longer the more half assed), then 9 o clock would signal that the rest of the day belonged solely to me and my interests, and I would be on the laptop or play video games untill whenever I got tired. Usually I'd clock around 5-6 hours a night of sleep during the week, and make it up by sleeping close to 10 on the weekends.
College set me straight with sleeping, though. I was able to schedule classes no earlier than 10:30, and if I went out late into the night and got hammered I could sleep in on a whim without consequence. I was also able to have nap time again. Definitely struggled getting sleep with a full time job now, but its been getting better. Everyone where I work has their own schedules. Couple of us are here at 7, me and others don't get in till 10-10:30. Sometimes I work till 7, most of the time I leave by 5, and sometimes I leave at 3. Rigidity kills the soul.
I probably watched more than that growing up so ymmv. I always wonder how they collect statistics like these. Questionnaires / self reporting by parents?
They install tracking boxes in the TV's of a sample of the population. This is done with the family authorization and often they get compensated for it. There's a lot of work that goes into choosing the sample so it's representative of the total population.
>Since migrating to AWS we’ve had two significant outages due to database problems, each preventing publication on theguardian.com for at least an hour.
This happened to us numerous times before and after we migrated to their Atlas platform. We are a major streaming company with more than 120M registered user. Disclosure, we are moving away from MongoDB as well.
I wrote introductory blog post answer that.
https://tech.iheart.com/why-fp-its-the-composition-f585d17b0...
TLDR; It's about the ability to compose. Category theory enables more general and powerful composition of components. That is not to say that without CT you won't be able to compose, it's just more cumbersome and less flexible.
Enough said.