Depending on the specific game itself, we can boil down the multiple-stat problem in a few ways. If the goal is to get all the stats as high as possible evenly, then we can assign each stat a multiplier based on how low it is. Fixing lower stats becomes worth more than buffing higher stats. That multiplier would depend on the game, on how much it punishes the low stat. The multiplier itself might end up being a whole new problem to solve, but for now I’ll just say its not my problem and call it X.

Whatever X is though, every stat can then be reduced to a single value using it. Super-low fortitude should be buffed over already-high mana according to X, so all of the numerical values in the game become directly comparable at any stage in this problem. Then I expect it will be equivalent to the knapsack problem. Each item in the game will boost several stats in certain ways, and all of those boosts can be combined using X to become our item value in the knapsack problem.

So I consider it to be the knapsack problem + figuring out X (which might be NP-complete on its own, depending on the game).

That was Illinois but honestly it’s just obvious in any state with a recreational/medicinal use law.

It’s ridiculous they’re allowed to keep using it as an excuse in general.

I did the same thing. It was allowed in general, with the correct thought, “if you can code it yourself, you know the content”

I had another “program” that would fail to run but that’s because I wrote notes into it. Doubt that was allowed.

The issue here is because they’re linked by the owner. If one stock goes up/down, the other does too. This has happened repeatedly with these two companies specifically, even.

So although they don’t own stock in the company in question, they still have a stock in seeing it succeed. Its success will bring about their own financial gain.

The fact that this issue was voiced and they specifically took the action that raises questions about authenticity also means we must question if that’s even the goal. If this went to a different judge, after all, one with no bias, then if this judge is unbiased, he should expect the same outcome. Of course, if he were biased and intended to give a biased ruling to take advantage of the chance to directly increase his wealth, then we’d expect him to be reluctant to let another judge rule on it. He could miss his financial opportunity, after all.

Another vote for “well-written”. I have read both, and both are good if they’re done well. Besides, I don’t usually have the option when I find a book, the summaries rarely tell me and I’m not gonna dig through the middle of the book for the answer to this question.

What I care about is being able to connect with the characters. If I can connect to someone in a realistic relationship, great. If I can connect to someone and they get that idealist treatment, great. If I can connect to someone and it seems like a romance but it’s abusive and the book becomes a realistic horror novel, that’s also great, I’ll feel the fear and desperation.

I never have wanted to read a book to have a specific experience, is my point. If your experience was well-written, it would be good.

Well they still have a finite life and are less replaceable than a battery. Even if it quadrupled the lifespan (which is a reasonably generous estimate given OP’s 4-year duration and wikipedia telling me supercapacitors last 10-15 years), it would still eventually need to be replaced and that would generally require resoldering it.

I think a much better solution is 2 battery slots, one to be a backup battery, unused, and then when needed, an LED on the mobo can be turned on. Honestly OP could jury-rig up a similar system if he wanted to, although it’d be a bit ugly and anytime something is jury-rigged I don’t really think of it as reliable.

The only real solution is to make this an extended maintenance task. The batteries are cheap so an alert every 4 years is likely sufficient to replace the battery before it dies. You could do it every 2 or 3 years instead at your discretion.

In fact the answer was a series of definitions of new biggest numbers, and you only defined one, instead of defining it, using it for its value of trees, then using that new term for more trees.

The thing they’re trying to market is a lot of people genuinely don’t know what to say at certain times. Instead of replacing an emotional activity, its meant to be used when you literally can’t do it but need to.

Obviously that’s not the way it should go, but it is an actual problem they’re trying to talk to. I had a friend feel real down in high school because his parents didn’t attend an award ceremony, and I couldn’t help cause I just didn’t know what to say. AI could’ve hypothetically given me a rough draft or inspiration. Obviously I wouldn’t have just texted what the AI said, but it could’ve gotten me past the part I was stuck on.

In my experience, AI is shit at that anyway. 9 times out of 10 when I ask it anything even remotely deep it restates the problem like “I’m sorry to hear your parents couldn’t make it”. AI can’t really solve the problem google wants it to, and I’m honestly glad it can’t.

Just spray them with a hose

SCOTUS ruling doesn’t apply here, they’re just commenting on the general trend of people not willing to sentence trump to anything, seemingly.

Just means the new backup service has permissions off by default.

Since your company may not want that, enjoy the eternal Microsoft spam forever.

Unions don’t work without a central state.

If there isn’t an organization larger than a corporation making it keep to a line, a corporation will end up as a monopoly. If a line of work for certain skills is completely monopolized by one company, a union can’t ever get bigger than them to enforce anything. Its a stalemate that the company can end by training scabs and a union can’t end at all. That’s assuming the company doesn’t just start murdering Union heads which is probably the first thing they’d start to do without an organization larger than a company to call on.

Of course, maybe we could unionize everyone into a people’s union, for the purposes of having a bigger entity than a corporation that can defend the people. Pay some Union dues to them to get some police-equivalent people to make companies toe the line. But corruption exists and while the USA isn’t really for the people today, that is pretty much how the USA started.

Unions as we know them rely on regulations like anti-monopoly laws to exist.

Although for the record I don’t hate anarcho capitalism, I just think it’s more of an ideal. A more realistic but comparable system would include a government to protect union rights and prevent oligarchical behaviors while still being mostly hands off on an industry with a Union, letting the union enforce safety and related guidelines.

You missed the memo!

https://www.walmart.com/plus

Yeah in my mind it’d be a “blank-only” gun, a movie prop. Which is well within the budget for movies like this, I mean they have a dedicated armorer. Resizing a barrel isn’t uncommon, based on Wikipedia searches, so while it might be a hassle, it could definitely be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost, and avoid any mechanical issues with the gun, but would be pretty high on the list of things a movie would cut corners on if it decided to.

Which is what I gather happened here, anyway, so maybe this IS standard practice.

Yeah but you could use a different caliber that’s nonstandard.

A company with a public offering basically cannot refuse a large enough buyout because with a public offering comes a financial responsibility to the shareholders. Public stock is a contract saying give me money and I’ll do my best to make you money back, and it’s very legally binding.

You can avoid this by never going public, but that also means you basically don’t get big investors for expanding what you can offer. A public offering involves losing some of your rights as owner for cash.

When the legal goal becomes “money above all else”, it is hard to justify NOT selling all the data and violating the trust of your customers for money, customer loyalty has to be monetizable and also worth more.

Proton has given a majority share to a nonprofit with a legal requirement to uphold the current values, not make money. This means that the remaining ownership can be sold to whoever, the only way anything gets done is if this foundation agrees. It prevents everything associated with a legal financial responsibility to make money, but still allows the business to do business things and make money, which seems to be proton’s founder’s belief, that the software should be sold to be sustainable.

Seems solid.

It doesn’t change a ton, but the point was basically them putting their money where their mouth is and saying “now we can’t sell out like everything else.”

If you liked them before, this is great. It means google or whoever literally can’t buy them out, it’s not about the money. If you were iffy already because they’re not FOSS or whatever other reason, this doesn’t change that, either, for better or worse

Right. If he had, he’d have been screwed by the hospital later, which is why he didn’t.

It is.

If he accepted it, he’d no longer have an argument with a strong foundation. He could still sue, but a lawyer could argue they already made it right.

Exactly the same logic as a 1$ inheritance, it shows that this was dealt with, so the law doesnt have to deal with it again.