asfasgasg

If I understand correctly, neither heat dissipation nor existing manufacturing techniques are amenable to this approach. Also modern CPUs do have more than a dozen layers IIRC.

I don't really understand the argument here. Google once provided more OSS with Android, so they are obligated to do so forever? That's not really how OSS works. If you decide you don't want to give away quite as much of your code for free, that might be unfortunate (depending on your perspective), but it's not wrong.

A more correct formulation of the title would be "Google's Totally Normal Grip on Google Apps: How Google Decided It Was in Their Best Interest To Give Away A Lot But Not Quite As Much As Before Free Value."

Uh, how does that follow? In what other domain do you get a pass for doing a little unnecessary harm because you could have done much more?

Integrity and privacy for all streams.

Well, there's that too, but people complaining about Google's decision r.e. Reader don't like being reminded that there are dozens of alternatives.

The saving grace, such as it is, is that these firearms are single-shot, and the rounds themselves are still metal and explosive-residue-detectable. While 3D printing has changed manufacturing methods, it's not like the method of deposition changes the strength of the material that much, so it's improbable that these plastic firearms will ever be able to withstand more than one or two shots.

It strikes me as likely that a 3D-printed gun will not be the most effective way to accomplish almost any kind of harm for almost any kind of perpetrator, no matter how situated. And that gives me a little comfort, even if I wish my countrymen were less fascinated with weapons.

Google+ only existed in the first place because of the thing that was killing the medium and its one hundred and forty character-limited cousin.

You've got the causality reversed here. The medium was dying, so the Reader product was killed.

I'm of two minds about this. Like most everyone, of course, I have this fear. I ponder the ways it is not adaptive. I find it lessens over time as I consider this.

BA tops the list at 1B revenue NYC to Heathrow. Virgin runs 80% as many flights on this same route, so they should be making in the ballpark of 800M revenue on that route. This is more than a number of other entrants on the list.

So I can only assume that the metric on display is something other than what the title and blog post communicate. It is something like,

    - Select all airline-routes pairs.
    - Group by endpoints and airline.
    - Order by SUM(revenue) DESC.
    - Drop duplicate routes.

That is, for any given route, they report the revenue of the highest revenue airline on that route. They select the top ten routes by the single airline making the most revenue on that route. This is an utterly zany metric and I can't imagine what use there is knowing it, but there you have it.

How much did this affect performance?

They can't make it, but there is some historical evidence that they (or, more broadly, the USG) can ruin it.

I've been confused by this in the past too, so let me clarify for you.

Confidence intervals are for predictions of a given value. They are not for probabilities. It doesn't make sense to say, "I think she has a 70% chance of winning, plus or minus 5%." On the other hand, it does make sense to say, I think she will get 48% of the vote, with an interval of +-1%.

Given that Clinton won the popular vote, and by a substantial margin, it is probable that more people were disappointed.