> While most people redeem their credit card points through the Chase or American Express travel portals at about 1-1.5 cents per point, transferring to an airline partner can yield 3-8 cents per point for business class or 12-20 cents per point for first class.
Are there any indicators on your website of how many cents per point a particular booking would be for?
Here's a $25 bidet [1] that I use that's compatible with most toilets. I guess a landlord could install a bidet in their apartment's toilets but I fail to see how this is a class issue.
No tutorials to link you to, but there's significant overlap between anti-cheat systems and anti-virus/anti-malware systems, which makes sense when you consider their aims. Searching for academic papers about anti-virus approaches to dealing with networking, memory and filesystems will be helpful.
Looking at the press release [1], it still feels relatively circumstantial to me. Not sure that we can deem the Zodiac Killer to be fully identified yet.
It's definitely not nearly as cut and dry as when they identified the Golden State killer.
This is exactly why I want to see more info about the cipher they solved (that and my innate interest in ciphers.) The claim is that when you remove all the letters of his full name, there is a 2nd message hidden there.
This is exactly the sort of thing I would immensely like to get ahold of and apply some stochastic models to, in addition to just knowing more of the specifics.
In any case, if they have truly deciphered a message that implicates him, it would be significantly more than circumstantial.
What really pains me is the paucity of substantial information backing up the claim, that and the story seems to have been broken by TMZ, ugh.
> pointing indirectly towards someone's guilt but not conclusively proving it.
You are correct that within a technical legal context most evidence is circumstantial. But that isnt the only meaning of the word, and indeed, largely not what is meant.
Yes, inferences must be made. But as a lot of those links mention, direct evidence (the other kind of evidence) is often worse as it's usually eyewitness accounts.
Lazy television writers have done us all a disservice by repeated implication that circumstantial evidence isn't good enough.
1. belonging to, consisting in, or dependent on circumstances
2. pertinent but not essential : incidental
The original comment used the word correctly. Because dictionaries describe how people actually speak, not prescribe rules on how to use words. That's why they get updated every so often as word usages change.
But this is a word that has a technical meaning and a colloquial meaning. It doesn’t make sense to apply the colloquial definition when a term is being used in the context of a technical discussion.
In other words, the appropriate definition of a term of art is... circumstantial. ;)
The Cornell Law dictionary that you cited is a good summary of what lawyers and judges are likely to think: Evidence that implies a person committed a crime, (for example, the person was seen running away from the crime scene). There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight. Compare to direct evidence.
Putting aside the very first paragraph ("What they meant is wrong"), this post makes some sound points.
It is also the case that the alleged new evidence for Poste being the killer is, in fact, circumstantial with respect to the issue of who committed the murders in question.
So, returning to that first paragraph, to establish whether what mauze meant is wrong, we must establish both that mauze meant something other than what was written, and that the intended meaning was wrong.
I do not see any conclusive evidence as to what mause meant. Furthermore, bena's reply to mause suggests that the intended meaning was 'weak'. That strikes me as plausible, but as far as I can tell, it would not be an obviously wrong characterization of the new evidence.
Other than first-hand knowledge, all evidence is circumstantial.
In response to all your detractors comments:
looking up words in English dictionaries for law jargon is a bad idea, you will get yourself thrown in the dock.
Blacks Law dictionary only.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The term in-
cludes all evidence of indirect nature. Milligan v.
State, 109 Fla. 219, 147 So. 260, 263.
It is direct evidence as to facts deposed to but indirect as
to the factum probandum, Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R.
449, 72 S.W.2d 269, 270; evidence of facts or circumstances
from which the existence or nonexistence of fact in issue
may be inferred. People v. Steele, 37 N.Y.S.2d 199, 200,
179 Misc. 587; Wolff v. Employers Fire Ins. Co., 282 Ky.
824, 140 S.W.2d 640, 645, 130 A.L.R. 682; Scott v. State,
57 Ga.App. 489, 195 S.E. 923, 924; inferences drawn from
facts proved, Hatfield v. Levy Bros., 18 Ca1.2d 798, 117 P.
2d 841, 845; preponderance of probabilities, Hercules Pow-
der Co., v. Nieratko, 113 N.J.L. 188, 173 A. 606, 610; pro-
cess of decision by which court or jury may reason from
circumstances known or proved, to establish by inference
the principal fact, People v. Taddio, 292 N.Y. 488, 55 N.E.
2d 749, 750.
It means that existence of principal facts is only inferred
from circumstances. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Lonas, 255
Ky. 717, 75 S.W.2d 348, 350.
When the existence of the principal fact is deduced from
evidentiary by a process of probable reasoning, the evi-
dence and proof are said to be presumptive. Best, Pres.
246; Id. 12. All presumptive evidence is circumstantial be-
cause necessarily derived from or made up of circum-
stances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive.
Burrill.
The proof of various facts or circumstances which usual-
ly attend the main fact in dispute, and therefore tend to
prove its existence, or to sustain, by their consistency, the
hypothesis claimed. Or as otherwise defined, it consists in
reasoning from facts which are known or proved to es-
tablish such as are conjectured to exist.
INDIRECT EVIDENCE. Is that which only tends
to establish the issue by proof of various facts
sustaining by their consistency the hypothesis
claimed. It consists of both inferences and pre-
sumptions. Lake County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 74
P. 212, 214.
Usually when a particular interpretation of a word renders it utterly meaningless then that interpretation is not the correct one.
In particular circumstantial can mean 'pertaining to circumstance' or it can be one of several other meanings derived from the same root. One of which is its noun form "Something incidental to the main subject, but of less importance", which sounds like a more reasonable interpretation. Or it may even be one of those words that only has a particular meaning in a legal context.
People glommed onto the idea of circumstantial meaning weak from police and legal procedurals.
And since we are talking about evidence, we should be using it within the context of evidence. And in that context, some or all of the evidence being circumstantial has no bearing on whether or not it is good evidence.
This isn't a matter of "other meanings [being] derived from the same root". There is no root. It's a misappropriation of a word from lazy television writers.
Well, from all appearances Warner Brothers saw the wild success of Avengers and decided they needed a big superhero mashup, thus the disastrous rush to create a Justice League movie without the gradual build-up of story lines and characters that the Marvel films produced.
Apple takes the Marvel approach to their technologies: releases features (of varying initial quality, admittedly) that gradually improve and are incorporated into bigger and better products.
Siri has never been best-in-class for anything, but has been a big part of making Apple Watch and AirPods so successful.
Apple invested in their own CPU designs for more than a decade before finally unveiling the M1 lineup.
Apple chose to shrink the Mac operating system to fit the iPhone, instead of porting the iPod OS, which gave them a unified set of APIs, and has made it practical to have Catalyst as a (still somewhat raw as I understand it) toolkit for writing software across iPhone, iPad, and macOS, plus of course iPhone and iPad apps can run natively on M1.
Most of Apple's competitors lack the freedom or the desire to bet the company on a specific direction; Microsoft of course has released Windows for ARM but has not, and cannot, tell their partners they have two years to switch or get left behind, for example.
Apple can set long-term strategic goals and follow through on them.
Having been through the "hassle to host your own email server" experience, several years ago, I was very skeptical about doing the mailinabox.email setup.
I was very pleasantly surprised, and have been hosting email for one of my domains on it for almost 4 years now. It was very easy to set up, and has been very easy to maintain.
This is the weirdest sequence of events I've ever seen from a company. At this point, from the point of view from someone that's not involved in this, it's more intriguing than it is frustrating.
Someone else pointed out elsewhere that maybe it was just a troll recreating the profile and not Livecoding themselves. I suppose that's possible, too.
Are there any indicators on your website of how many cents per point a particular booking would be for?