China's idea of free trade is unilateral: it's them being free to export. They're massively protectionist within China, mainly through non-tariff barriers such as arbitrary regulation.
futatorius
joined 5 months ago
Leave your phone at home. Ride a bike or walk, don't drive (defeats giar recognition, ANPR and in-car tracker software). ANPR cameras can also be disabled with black spray paint. Wear a hoodie. Use a VPN and an adblocker when you are online. Practice skeet shooting so you can shoot down drones. Also jam them if you can.
An ankle weight is less damaging. I doubt if gait recognition is all that valid anyway.
the paper’s ostensibly liberal/progressive line
They're aligned with the Liberal party, which is a centrist party which is seldom if ever progressive. The Guardian does put up some articles by progressives, on occasion, but they also publish articles by conservatives. When the Labour Party was led by Corbyn, the Guardian was consistently critical of Labour policy and bought into the rightwing press's phony accusations that Corbyn was antisemitic. Overall, the Guardian's core politics are those of the metropolitan bourgeoisie, as can also be seen by their lifestyle and media commentary, as well as their general smugness. And on economic matters, their coverage is utterly useless. On that, the Economist and the FT are far superior, despite their occasionally odious politics in their editorial pages.
I still read the Graun, though, since the rest of the British press is far, far worse.
A couple of years late, but OK.
An even better alternative is to replace it with nothing. The Twitter-like messaging paradigm is only good for trivia and rumor-mongering.
Ryanair has always had a culture of gleefully abusing its customers for arbitrary reasons.
If you have infinite time, you don't also need infinite monkeys.
It's more a "yeah, but..." than a refutation.
A less than infinite number of simians have already done it once.
And how likely is it that it'll be done again identically by a finite set of simians?
If the monkeys' probability distribution function can be transformed to a uniform distribution by a continuous function, the outcomes are equivalent enough for this exercise. (There are probably some discontinous functions that'd also work). So, unless there's some genetic weirdness in monkeys that prevents their ever hitting certain keys, they're adequate RNG engines. But at that point, you're really tweaking the assumptions based on how realistically you think monkeys are portrayed in the thought experiment.
And I don't believe "quantumly random" is a necessary condition here.
view more: next ›
Why would they use real doctors at all?