unepipe

"become a caricature of yourself"

this is definitely comedy

so it's 5, not 2. an outer and inner cancel each other out. then the remaining whether inside or outside are added to that same side.

Yeah my point was every measurement system has some value you can’t easily divide into thirds. How you measure depends on your tolerances. I have no qualms using either system, but metric is a much better system in my opinion.

I have a project where I need 3 wooden blocks, each perfect squares, to fit width wise in a 10” wide gap. I don’t want any space between these blocks sides of the gap they fit in. It’s an important project to me and I’m willing to pay a substantial sum of money.

But from what I am reading it sounds like you’re not able to do the job, the blocks need to be 3 1/3” wide each. It’s a no-go if I see someone try to cut them to 3 5/16”

What kind of system doesn’t let you cut such a fundamental length into thirds. Crazy.

What kind of junk statistics are these? HBR ought to be more discerning in what it publishes.

"How successful teams collaborate"... wait, I meant "the average number of users who update the same directories in Dropbox from institutions that tend to have influential research.

Sound insights. Make sure you're collaborating with no more than 2.3 people or else you'll have to move your research projects over to Yale.

"cultural compatibility"... Sounds like a concept created by someone who hasn't met people from very many cultures.

Not true.

Sure, put my reputation behind something I have never tried. That makes sense.

It's actually dangerous and unethical TO put my name behind this untested product. It's not open source, and I'm being asked to put my seal of trust and approval on their project. That's a hard no.

It means what it says. They simplify how a company can take an order and get the money. It’s a product for businesses.

And dynamic subscriptions means they have a way to change elements of a subscription (term length, renewal period). Dynamic means it’s something that changes.

You said that the information regarding either production goals or production numbers from Tesla's website was "inherently biased toward the company and not the best source". Meaning the published reservations, projections or production numbers would have been misrepresented in some way to benefit the company.

If they did so, that would be securities fraud, by definition. What about their projections, which were publicly stated and published in the past, or their actual production, which was publicly stated in the article (both of which are subject to SEC regulation review and legal recourse) are inherently biased toward the company?

The comment was clearly critiquing Engadget's journalism (lack of original source citation).

The comment was not regarding the quality of Google's search engine results for given keywords.

But you can copyright a database.

Tesla is not producing peakers, correct?