If this was originally filed on an open bug tracker in July 2015, what were the glibc team doing in the mean time? The Google post indicates they were "working on it" when Google got in touch. How much work was going on, exactly? How did this languish for so long?
I think the difference is in one case you are talking about specific properties of specific programs, and in the other you are talking about a universal question about any program.
This link[1] agrees with you, but I'm wondering how retirement communities get around this. I'm not talking about assisted living, but places like this[2].
This is for the landlord-tenant relationship. My understanding is that it's legal for people to advertise for roommates (with whom they share living space) based on pretty much whatever they want.
If you want a full featured local linux command line, you can switch to developer mode and install one in a chroot via something like https://github.com/dnschneid/crouton
This does sidestep some of the security features of the device, but it's fine if you really want it. Or you can just ssh somewhere.
I found OSX with MacPorts to be quite enough most of the time. I can run editors and such on the Mac side and test the application from within a small VM.
The article lists 1.8P for a brain with 75 million neurons. Unless I've misplaced my zeroes, that's over ~20M per neuron, which seems much higher than I'd expect.
Its worth pointing out that due to Sarbanes-Oxley, some of this will not happen on the stock market this time. So if you are just looking at P/E of publicly traded stocks you are going to miss the signs.
Yeah, this is not news to anyone who looks beyond the surface level income figures. Unfortunately, journalists fail us comprehensively in this regard. It's a shame because there are some very interesting things to talk about once you look at lifetime gross income and the trajectory people take through life.
"Working with funding from the Yale Provost’s office, Cowen and post doctoral researcher Brice Kuhl, now an assistant professor at New York University, showed six subjects 300 different “training” faces while undergoing fMRI scans. They used the data to create a sort of statistical library of how those brains responded to individual faces. They then showed the six subjects new sets of faces while they were undergoing scans. Taking that fMRI data alone, researchers used their statistical library to reconstruct the faces their subjects were viewing."
So yes, it will always output something like a face. It's more like they are using the FMRI to select among preset options. It's still potentially a great result, but we need more detail than this article provides.