No, but it has VirtualThreads and while they are not the same it gives you similar performance benefits without having to deal with "async-y"/callback stuff
By native i assume you mean arab. Not to mention that the infant mortality rate dropped something like 90% after the state was founded and the arab population is still growing at a huge rate.
Not necessarily, this can happen with immigration alone. For example, French and English descendants used to form a much greater percentage of the Canadian population, yet they were not "ethnically cleansed".
If we are talking about pre-globalization many countries are no longer have a majority “native” population. (US, Japan, Taiwan, parts of Europe) and that is just the reality of human history.
I think we have to decide on a time when the back and fourth geocoding between groups is no longer acceptable. Most of the world thinks it’s around the end of ww2 and the start of globalization, but are you contending that it should be later, and the Arabs should take back Israel?
No, the most important thing is not causing a collision.
We don’t need to guess here, Waymo is way safer than human drivers as a car and a pedestrian. So clearly optimizing for “not confusing human drivers” is not correct.
Human drivers frequently run into stationary objects and plow over bikers/pedestrians so maybe there’s a huge category of situations where they *should* be surprised
> No, the most important thing is not causing a collision.
That's why I said "one of the most important", not "the most important". Driving in the least surprising way is one of the methods of avoiding accidents.
If Waymo's driving style means that they get rear-ended more than normal, that means that Waymo is behaving in a way that surprises other drivers. While it's true that the fault is the driver that did the rear-ending, it can also be true that the accident may have been avoided if Waymo drove in a manner that didn't surprise the tailgater.
This is disturbing. Most of social media is promoting unrealistic aesthetic standards, fitness might be the one aesthetic standard you can actually control with hard work, but yes lets ban that one.
* not restricting plastic surgery content
* not restricting skincare content
* not restricting fashion content
There is way too much money in makeup and fashion for them to restrict that.
Likely this is a preemptive move to try to avoid regulators banning those lucrative areas by virtue signaling and restrict the channels that doesn't make them lots of money.
Eh, the fitness industry has it's own set of garbage content. There aren't enough topics to really cover and keep making content about. And yet, hundreds of thousands (millions?) of fitness content creators exist. At a certain point they start pumping out garbage or intentionally disagreeing with the current status quo to cause outrage/engagement and get more views.
Also pretty much anyone can call themselves a personal trainer, so you have people doing 6 week courses and then considering themselves professional coaches.
I keep trying to convince a friend whose a "proper" (top powerlifter, played rugby, can olympic lift, masters degree) personal trainer to make "garbage" content. e.g. instead of having an upper/lower split or something else sensible, make it a left/right split. So every day you do full body, but only the left or right side of the body.
Call it a revolutionary training method that fixes muscle imbalances since you only do unilateral exercises. I bet that idea could trend despite it being mostly garbage advice with a few facts mixed in.
I've noticed this as well, particularly
with problems that aren't likely measurable or are likely genetic/anatomical differences, such as shoulder position or gait. Of course you can fix it, just do this thing that seems plausible enough, every day for some amount of reps for some amount of sets that I came up with, consistently forever, and you'll totally straighten out what is clearly a bone deformity on one side of your body.
Given a monetary incentive, people will turn themselves into bs promotors.
No its breathing through your nose which forces your tongue to the roof of your mouth, this provides support to your nasal cavity and can change the entire shape of your face over time.
Mewing is essentially slang for correct tongue posture. Look up myofunctional therapy if you’re curious.
That is pseudo science, there is nothing to support it works. John Mew lost his dental license due to misconduct, the "mewing" movement should be seen like homeopathy movement.
Arresting tourists for crimes they did not commit is hostage taking and could be considered an act of war.
The US is willing to prison swap terrorists with Russia, we definitely wouldn’t tolerate some EU country (that we spend billions of dollars defending) arbitrarily arresting tourists so they can hold a foreign company hostage.
Anyway I think you're right that the US would strongarm EU governments in to getting their way (look at privacy shield, etc.) but I still think "you're allowed to continue breaking our laws that affect people in our country while you visit us because it happens to be running on a computer you left at home" is a weak defence.
We’re talking about xx million dollar dispute between allied countries, it’s not a reasonable method of conflict resolution to start throwing people in cages that work for x company until the EU gets their way.
> what do you mean “did not commit”
It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.
Edit: if we’re talking about an individual US citizen that’s found guilty in the EU, then the EU will go through the extradition process to have them arrested.
This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country.
> It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.
Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply incorporating in their home state? Of course not.
Imagine that offered death by drones. You tell 'em who you want killed and they mail a package containing a drone that pops out and kills the person when it's delivered. Would it be reasonable to say "Yeah we can't arrest anyone from that company when they come to our country because they incorporated in another jurisdiction?"
If the EU wants to arrest someone they can submit an extradition request which the US will approve or deny after reviewing. The EU can also already arrest individuals whom are found to be criminals.
You are suggesting a totally new weapon for EU law enforcement which is to imprison individuals who are not found guilty of a crime because they work for a company that owes the EU money. That sounds a bit insane to me, I think if the EU wants to collect their fine they should find a more diplomatic approach that does not equate to a literal war crime [1]
The flaw in your line of thinking is that it is legal and very common place to arrest people who are suspected of committing a crime.
We're talking about people who have suspected of committing a crime in the EU. Should they step foot in the EU the EU is free to arrest suspects of a crime and they can get their day in court.
reply