But once we get approval to for thermonuclear detonations in the middle east, we can modify the plan. We don’t need to dig a new canal if we just blow up any Iranian sites capable of attacking ships in the strait.

It would be determined that the OS vendor who included such instructions was not making a “good faith effort” to comply with the law.

IF AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR A COVERED APPLICATION STORE MAKES A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THIS ARTICLE 30 , TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY AND ANY REASONABLE TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS OR OUTAGES , THE OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR COVERED APPLICATION STORE IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ERRONEOUS AGE SIGNAL INDICATING A USER’S AGE RANGE OR FOR CONDUCT BY A DEVELOPER THAT RECEIVES AN AGE SIGNAL INDICATING A USER’S AGE RANGE .

Without a “good faith effort” to comply, they become liable for “intentional” violation, which is a $7500 penalty.

Based on what I’ve read of the California law (AFAIK, the Colorado bill is nearly identical), Microsoft, Google, Apple, and vendors of other closed-source commercial software would be considered OS providers. However, vendors of FOSS OSes cannot control what changes the local administrator chooses to make to the OS. The “OS Provider” is the responsible party under these bills; for FOSS software, that person is the end user installing the OS, and not an upstream vendor.

All we can say from the given scenario is that the student has not demonstrated mastery of the subject material.

It could be that the teacher fucked up, and tested improperly. I’ve seen tests that didn’t reflect the subject matter; the teacher failed.

It could be that Mom or Dad were the ones completing the student’s assignments for them all year. The student never actually learned anything; the student failed.

If every student had the same experience, I’d be happy to point fingers at the teacher. But when virtually all her students pass, and this one “workaholic” kid can’t, that’s not on the teacher. That’s on the kid.

(Apparent) hard work is not evidence of mastery.

The UK uses single phase to the house. This is provided via one 240v hot and a neutral. Their final distribution transformer bonds one side of the output coil to ground and use it as a neutral, which makes the other side of the coil 240v relative to that ground.

The US uses split phase to the house. This is 240v provided via two opposing 120v hots and a common neutral. Their final distribution transformer is almost identical to the UK version: end to end, they have a 240v output. The difference is that instead of bonding one end of the output coil to ground and using it as a neutral for the other end, they instead bond the center of the output coil to ground and use that as a common neutral for both ends.

Not just solar - most grid-scale generators have this problem. “Black start” is the search term you want to look for, and Practical Engineering has a good video on the subject.

Basically, only a relative few grid generators are actually capable of black starts. The rest need the grid to be already functioning before they can tie in and start producing.

Ohio does something like that. We have separate contracts with a heavily regulated grid operator for distributing power, and our choice of generation companies for providing power.

The grid operator does our metering and billing, but forwards our generation charge to the provider we select.

Are you saying that electrical power should only be provided by government entities?

Should you be allowed to plug in a solar panel and provide power back to the grid?

Are you a government entity?

If you think you should be allowed to backfeed your own meter, you are calling for the grid to be operated as some sort of market. A regulated market, sure. But a market nonetheless.

The “natural monopoly” of electrical power is only on the distribution, not the generation of that power. It is reasonable for various generators to compete against each other to meet grid demand.

You should be able to push power back onto the grid. You should not be limited only to taking it off the grid. If you can put more on than you remove, you should be compensated for your generation at the market rate.

Assignments are not evidence of learning. Assignments are pressure for students to learn. They are motivation to spend time acquiring knowledge and practicing skills expected to be acquired from the class.

For students who master this knowledge and skill without that pressure, assignments are distractions from further study. They force the student to expend time and energy on previously-mastered material, rather than allowing them to focus on unmastered subjects or additional classes.

If I were building a grading rubric, I would say that the test score at the end of each unit is the minimum score recorded for any assignment in that unit. My tests would be killers: I would target 80% raw scores, but final test scores would be on a curve, with the median score being recorded as an “A”.

Score a 100% raw score on a unit test, and every assignment for that unit is raised to 100%. The student has demonstrated complete mastery of the subject matter; any grade less than 100% does not reflect their true capability.

Score an 80% raw score on the unit test, and every assignment for that unit is at least an 80%. A 95% assignment stays a 95%, but a 45% assignment is counted as 80%. Missing assignments are counted as 80%, not 0%.

I would go further: the raw score on the final exam replaces every lower grade in the grade book. You ace that indomitable horror of a final exam, you ace the class, regardless of how much effort you put in.

The purpose of a class is to instill a specific set of knowledge and skills.

The purpose of an assignment is to provide the student with sufficient pressure to study the expected knowledge, and practice the expected skills. The assignment is the pressure to learn; it is not evidence of learning.

To the student who has achieved mastery of that knowledge and skillset prior to completing the class, an assignment has no valid purpose. For such a student, the assignment is busywork, and serves only to distract the student from further study.

If your grading style does not allow for a student to demonstrate mastery and refuse busywork assignments, your grading is a problem.

A student with test scores equal or better than the class average does not deserve to fail your class for having refused assignments.

A student who ritualistically completes all of their homework assignments with excellent marks, but is entirely unable to pass a test on the subject matter, is a student who has failed your class.

Aren’t all these bets made of a blockchain? Aren’t these transactions traceable from wallet to wallet?

Basically, any complaint made against you is an opportunity for the BBB to sell you a membership.

The argument is that if you don’t buy a membership, then complaints against you tend to substantiated, and your response to those complaints is deemed inadequate. If you do buy a membership, then the complaints against you are generally unsubstantiated, and your responses are exceptional.

Ah. A fellow KSP player.

Eat the rich.

You remember the Turducken craze? TIme for a Mubezuckison.

I’m actually wondering how payouts for poly market works I’d assume it would be proportional to how much you bet versus everyone else. Probably whole range.

The payouts are established by the participants.

https://docs.polymarket.com/concepts/positions-tokens

When someone starts an event, there are initially no shares to be had. You can pay $1 and buy both a “yes” share and a “no” share from Polymarket. This is called “splitting”. You’re splitting your money into shares on both sides of the event. One will payout, the other will not. If you keep both sides, you’ll just break even.

Presumably, you want something more than breaking even. So, you keep the side of the bet that you want, and you offer to sell the other side of that bet.

You could offer your “no” shares for $0.25 each. Someone can give you $25 for them. Now you have 100 “yes” shares that will be worth $100 or $0 in the future, and $25 cash. You could also offer your “yes” shares for $0.80 each. Someone else might buy them from you at that price, giving you $80. You are now out of the market, with a total of $105 back. This is “trading”.

After a hard day of trading back and forth, you find yourself with good positions on both sides of the bet. You have 200 “yes” shares that you paid $80 for, and 100 “no” shares that you also paid $40 for. You can take 100 yes shares and 100 no shares, join them together, and sell them back to Polymarket for $100. This is called “merging”.

Finally, you can wait until the event occurs. Let’s say the outcome was “yes”. Your 100 “yes” shares are now worth $1 each, and can now be traded at that price. This is called “redeeming”.

If you don’t want it to happen, you bet “yes”. You bet “yes” as hard as you can, so that the only way the insiders can make any money is by betting against the “yes” consensus, and refusing to blow up the world.

It’s a bribe/protection racket with extra steps.

Backing out of a parking space, you must yield to traffic within the lane of traffic However, you are on the wrong end of the vehicle to properly observe traffic within the lane. With restricted vision and attention focused on the maneuver, you are also burdened with deconflicting traffic that has the right-of-way over you.

Backing in, you begin the maneuver from a lane in which you are already established. You have the right-of-way over that lane until you have completely departed that lane. While you are distracted and focused on the backing maneuver, conflicting traffic is legally obligated to avoid you.

“Backing in” exploits “right-of-way” to improve safety for both you and your fellow travelers.

That’s an occultist.

An opthalmologist is an appointed official who investigates complaints by taxpayers against government departments.

Comment refers to the girl’s eyeglass prescription, not a ranking of her attractiveness.

Based on the distortion visible in her glasses, her prescription is approximately -1.00 to -1.50 diopters. Severely nearsighted prescriptions would cause the wearer to appear to have much smaller eyes; farsighted prescription would cause the eyes to appear larger.