My wife runs https://www.saviament.com/, an open-access educational website in Catalan. She also sells printable content following the same style as the website, which has exploded in popularity this year and has become a decent source of income.
Yes, but you have to factor in that you can't eat houses.
Being given money immediately for your living costs might be more attractive to you, than trying to retain value in an asset you'll only realise in 20 years time when you sell it, or perhaps not at all if you die first.
It seems unlikely that this pattern of homicides would be explain by differences in general government policies between the U.S. and UK, such as healthcare policies.
NYC is very safe for an American city, but London is not particularly unsafe for a UK one; its violent crime rate is about average for England as a whole.
You are right. Should not have relied on the most likely LLM-generated description attached to the data. I trusted it because I already had the wrong impression that it was less safe, but that was just because the raw number of crimes is high because it is very populated.
As a general rule of thumb, probably never trust anything an LLM says; they're bad at things.
(I'm particularly unsurprised that they'd get confused about _London_, because, well, what is a London anyway? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London . Even _human_ writers sometimes get confused about stats for London.)
Same boat. I have a 6D Mark II since 7 years ago now, and I misguidedly was counting on ML to be released within 3 years of my purchase. But luckily, it's still a fantastic camera.
There is only so much you can do - you kick them out for everything and thus further cutoff the country and that in turn means you have less influence in the future.
If you are going scam people with locked iPhones over the internet, why send an iPhone at all? You should just send a literal paperweight. It will serve the same purpose. It's not like the marketplace will be like "It's an iPhone. Even if it is locked, the seller is right. We will remove the negative rating and let the seller keep their reputation".
By the way, I recently sold an iPhone 8 (through App, but the transfer was in person) and out of 5 potential buyers, all of them asked the same three questions: "Is it on and unlocked?, is it carrier sim-locked?, which is the battery %?".
It seems to me that it would increase safety, but I guess only a simulation could truly tell. I understand your take, but I have a different one: most accidents happens when someone makes a mistake at stop light changes. Less cars stopping/starting at red lights seems less chances for accidents to me.
Let's go with an absurd example: If you multiplied by 5 both the length of red and green stages, I would expect much less accidents per day, but it would obviously also be much more frustrating to move around (and possibly more accidents if the amount of infractions increase because of the frustration). If you divided them by 2, I would expect much more accidents of all kinds.
In this context it could be able to do multiple actions in order to address an ask from the user: read cells, documentation, edit cells, and perhaps even read the result from the edited cell before answering. i.e. "Can you create a new sheet that focuses on the Countries where the sales happened, including YoY differences, and tell me which countries are outliers and for which reason(s)?" (probably very far fetched given the level of progress Excel has achieved in 20 years).
I am also not clear that it is that much more ambitious. You are not comparing the correct numbers. 1200 GW in 2030 is just solar and wind, they are targeting 3.9TW renewables by 2030 and 80% non-fossil by 2060.
Where did you see the 3.9TW number? I don't see how they can target 1200GW wind and solar and 3.9TW renewable total - what other resources are there?
I found the info from a quick look outside the article, so it could definitely be questionable. I will say, China has a bunch of hydro iirc, and right now a lot of countries with lots of renewables is is likely as not just down to huge hydro shares than anything else (though that is obviously changing quite fast nowadays).
Even by the targets (which are, admittedly, just targets, AU is targetting 80% renewable share 2030 vs CN 2060. I do expect us to be better given relative wealth etc, though all that probably matters less and less as renewables become the most competitive.
Anyway, mostly I'm frustrated by the article not providing a good analysis of the news, it's just repeating what the think tank said (this os sadly becoming par for the course for the ABC nowadays, I haven't found it to have high quality reporting :()
I understand your frustration. I had to dig quite a bit to find numbers I could use, because there are multiple energy categories that are used inconsistently: solar&wind, all renewables, non-fossil. Then they are combined with two main ways of measuring them: capacity and average production. Then there are targets, predictions and in-production. It is a nightmare to get fair 1:1 comparisons.
If you don't need the granularity, you can store all the credentials that will be used by a specific caller(s) in a single JSON object and it will cost you only those $0.50. You can easily fit a thousand, maximum size is 64kb.
