Get Rainbolt to have a look and he’ll tell you exactly where it was shot in just a few minutes.
Get Rainbolt to have a look and he’ll tell you exactly where it was shot in just a few minutes.
worse than regular recycling of plastic
In case people don’t know why it’s worse - it uses a lot more energy to do pyrolysis than it does to just make new plastic. It’s bad enough that it’s worse for the environment than just making new plastic.
In any case no plastics recycler has any intention of doing this except in “pilot studies”. It’s a dead duck and everyone in the industry knows it. As /u/SeaJ said, it’s just PR.
The workplace isn’t high school.
It can be. I’ve definitely seen cases which were more high school than a professional workplace.
They wanted to make an example of someone. His thumbing his nose at the US government was well publicised, so they made their revenge on him very public too.
I wonder how many thousands of people died as a result.
They’re not wrong that democracy’s under threat. But maybe the threat’s from the guy who has literally said he’s going to murder political opponents - y’know, the guy they support.
Celebrities get wide latitude to protect themselves from imitators. Impressionists can do “satire” etc. but this isn’t that. It’s explicitly a reference to her voice in the movie, and as such she’s protected by law from them going around her and hiring someone else to imitate her.
It was explicitly represented as her voice when he tweeted “Her” in relation to the product, referencing a movie which she voiced. It’s not a legal grey area in the US. He sank his own ship here.
He tweeted “Her”, which explicitly tells us it’s a deliberate imitation of Scarlett’s voice in that movie. And he tried to negotiate licencing her famous voice, which she rejected.
So it’s more than just a coincidence, it’s deliberate bad faith behaviour. Legally you can’t misrepresent a product as being from a famous person when it wasn’t, and he very much did that. I guess he was hoping she’d give in and accept the licensing agreement post-facto. But instead it looks he’s in legal deep water now.
All this tells me is that they have a great PR department.
Meanwhile Mercedes has already reached level 3.
I remember many years ago New Scientist magazine did a review study of many different alternative medicine techniques and found that the only benefits they provided were placebo effect.
Except acupuncture. That was the only one with an effect greater than placebo.
It seems like the peer review process is broken too.
“They banned mercenaries so we’ll just call them something different”
deleted by creator
Yes, that’s the difference between “safer” and “actually safe”.
It’s also a fallacy that rust code is memory safe. I audited a couple of large rust projects and found that they both had tens of unsafe constructs. I presume other projects are similar.
You can’t use “unsafe” and then claim that your program’s memory safe. It may be “somewhat safe-ish” but claiming that your code is safe because you carefully reviewed your unsafe sections leaves you on the same shaky ground as c++, where they also claim that they carefully review their code.
deleted by creator
The chips with the oxidisation issue were manufactured by Intel at their Arizona fab plant.