xevb3k

Thank you for your detailed answer.

I understand the reasons better, it’s unfortunate and slightly depressing to me that the community hasn’t been able to come up with a better solution. Particularly as the google analytics approaches involves giving data up to a 3rd party for processing.

Yes but you’re saying twitter say their metrics are off by a factor of 5 because it’s not running the GA JS. If you wanted to properly investigate that looking at the server logs would probably give a better idea in this case.

I guess with serverless you should be able to see this either with your own logging or perhaps on AWS with Cloudwatch? (no idea as I’ve not used it).

Why do you (and why do people in general) not use server logs for analytics of this sort?

Seems like it might show requests that failed to get to the point of processing the analytics JS as well as those running adblockers.

I’ve not heard it used that way, but I could be wrong. There’s possibly also a historical usage in this sense.

Right, but the word 地球 can only mean the planet Earth, it’s not synonymous with anything else and there’s no room for confusion.

Soil, or ground (on any planet) is a different word. There’s not much room for confusion.

Interesting, it’s always been my assumption, and unless everyone is operating in good faith, if don’t have board control (and/or >50% of equity) it’s a possibility that I might well get diluted to nothing.

As such, unless I’m confident that I trust everyone involved, I would value equity quite low (and I’ve certainly been screwed out of equity in the past...)

In Japanese there’s 地球 which means Earth (this planet), and 土 which means soil.

地 can also mean soil, but it’s a different word from 地球 meaning the planet earth. I don’t think it’s commonly used by itself to mean soil either, but I could be wrong.

While the OP has said they have 20% equity. Given the other two founders have a controlling interest, to what extent could they push the OP out and take/reduce their equity?

I’m not saying they would, but I’m wondering how possible it is. Could they vote to redistribute equity, or massively dilute OPs equity and then distribute more equity to themselves for example?

First author should be the person who did the work, that’s pretty strandard. Corresponding author doesn’t always need to be first author.

Honestly this does sound pretty terrible. The student doesn’t have to publish, and you don’t get to misrepresent yourself as first author if they don’t want to.

Really really want to be first author, redo the work yourself. That’s the only way you can claim credit (and responsibility) for having done the work.

Can it completely satisfy our current energy requirements?

Last I heard, nuclear was the only non-fossil fuel way of doing that. Is that still the case?

That’s fair enough, I don’t think that process would work here though?

I also don’t understand why you would do that. Given the ceramic part in question doesn’t look like anything that would be on a motherboard, and has been identified as an RF component.

If you find evidence of discrimination, you take action. What action exactly is up for debate. You could even go so far as replacing the board.

But not all, all male boards will be caused by discrimination, and adding a few females members will not solve this problem in many cases.

No it wasn’t? They used to use gold caps.

You could absolutely use a novel manufacturing technique to make something that looks like the picture in the article.

It wouldn’t make much sense to do so, because that part doesn’t even belong on a computer motherboard, it’s an RF component.

It’s reasonably clear that the chip shown in the article is very unlikely to be any kind of microcontroller/semiconductor.

It’s embedded in ceramic. Such devices need to be fired at very high temperatures which a semiconductor wouldn’t be able to withstand.