As I understand it, the problem with perishable goods is that any regulation can only protect one side of a futures market or the other, so if you want to treat both sides equally the Solomonic solution is not to have them.
Yes. And chat outputs normally include footnoted links to sources, so clicking a link produced by Sydney/Bing would be normal and expected user behavior.
Buy appropriately sized tractors. Typically farmers are upgrading these things all the time, should be pretty straightforward to swap out this single factor of production to the right sort of thing.
Our vehicles and machinery have this tendency to occupy prime mental real estate, as unchangeable monoliths around which everything must be planned. In reality, they are the most changable thing, and we must change our machinery to serve us, rather than the other way around.
There are also lots of crops that are not serviced by large tractors, but individual human hands. In fact most of the fruit and vegetables we eat are like that, and many of those crops do very well with a bit less than full Sun.
"Generally, MAU [monthly active users] fluctuates over the course of a year, dropping in the summer months and during holidays"
That seems to fit what's happening here. Longer term, firefox seems to have lost 15-20% of users in the past 3 years, which is substantial but not catastrophic. On the other hand, that probably means a much steeper decline in market share.
Alright, thanks very much. I guess I was deceived by the not quite professional grasp of English, and repeated use of "I" in some of the justifications.
For me, a folding bluetooth keyboard was what made the difference. It really tilts my default time-to-fill behavior from consuming towards producing. I'd also recommend having a ring on the back of your phone, so you can prop it at a good viewing angle.
I've been writing with obsidian, coding via ssh. Jupyter notebooks and other browser-based environments are also good, though much smoother with a tablet-sized screen.
[Publishers claim sites like Sci-Hub] “have no incentive to ensure the accuracy of scientific articles, no incentive to ensure published papers meet ethical standards, and no incentive to retract or correct articles if issues arise.”
The correct response to this should be to always note in citations when a paper was accessed through sci-hub. Then the reader is warned, and can compare against the canonical version if they are worried.
Sci-Hub is a library, a repository, not a publisher. The original article publisher has editorial responsibility for article selection, not Sci-Hub, just as with any repository.
The accuracy of articles themselves and the integrity of them is trivial to establish as SciHub, LibGen, and ZLibrary all index principally on checksums of files. If there's a modification, the checksums will reveal which items are affected.
Note the MD5 hash provided for Stephen Breyer's seminal article "The Uneasy Case for Copyright" (1970): 8F8B57972236B04621795C49A15E8C2E
