I thought they catch fire and burn down slowly.

Correct. Both the recent pager and radio attacks, and the 1996 cell phone attack, were performed by planting military explosives inside the devices in advance.

There is no magical way to hack the electronics to make a lithium battery straight up explode.

Also, Israel already assassinated someone by exploding their cell phone way back in 1996.

Technically I think that’s still “put us first on the search bar” money. You’re giving the real under-the-table explanation.

This is missing a “just right” image for reference, and so everyone can criticize the author’s cookie preferences.

Uranium doesn’t usually glow in the dark? If you can see a blue glow, you need to get the heck out of there, or submerge it in a lot of water.

Not enough mushrooming in that case.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + … = -1/12

I went to labcorp for a while when I needed monthly blood draws for my doctor.

Even worse if you think your idea is just the best darn thing to come along since sliced bread. And then Dr. 1995 comes along and lays out the whole thing in a footnote in a paper on a different topic.

criminal lawsuit?

What? Do they mean “criminal prosecution?”

I think a lot of people understand the concept of light-seconds, which can measure distance in seconds.

Allow me to introduce the gravity-second. 1 gravity-second of mass-energy is enough mass-energy to have a Schwarzchild radius of 2 light-seconds.

Set G = 1 and c =1. Then equations like r = 2m make dimensional sense.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system

“gradient descent” is a jargon word for one kind of training method.

Well you see, in 1793, 'Merica requested the metric artifacts from France so we could be metric too. France sent over a kilogram, but the shipment was lost at sea. And that was a little sad.

All joking aside, US feet, inches, pounds, and so on have been secretly really metric since 1893.

Well it probably wasn’t a Vic Mackey-style rubber hose attack, because it sounds like this chump is getting hauled into court.

Adding onto this. p < 0.05 is the somewhat arbitrary standard that many journals have for being able to publish a result at all.

Is you do an experiment to see we whether X affects Y, and get a p = 0.05, you can say, “Either X affects Y, or it doesn’t and an unlikely fluke event occurred during this experiment that had a 1 in 20 chance.”

Usually, this kind of thing is publishable, but we’ve decided we don’t want to read the paper if that number gets any higher than 1 in 20. No one wants to read the article on, “We failed to determine whether X has an effect on Y or not.”

I’m thinking of highly niche industrial and embedded products who are likely to be left behind.

A major traditional selling point for Windows has always been the backwards compatibility.

Yeah. This sounds a lot like some PM type thinks they’re gonna get rid of control panel, and they just don’t know what all is actually in there.

And not to mention the custom control panel applets hanging around out there from who-knows-what vendors.

But the ads on search are the big revenue driver for Google overall. Presumably those stay with the Google Search subunit, and they would have plenty of cash to do whatever?

But if they’ve only been found to monopolize search, how does that remedy the search monopoly? Presumably the new separate Google Search company would still have a search monopoly.