dumb enough to think that something you just thought of without any research is valid and also dumb enough to think sharing that online is a good idea.
Do you know what community you're posting in?
You can disagree with someone without being an ass, this was uncalled for.
UK and England are not synonyms. This is England behind the curve as usual and updating regulation to catch up, you already need id for energy drinks elsewhere in the UK.
The article claims the client DBs weren't directly accessed but some client data was compromised. My guess would be employee data is safe but billing/contact info leaked.
"We recently identified that Workday had been targeted and threat actors were able to access some information from our third-party CRM platform. There is no indication of access to customer tenants or the data within them."
However, some business contact information was exposed in the incident, including customer data that could be used in subsequent attacks.
You mean like all the things in the link OP posted which you scrolled past just to be an ass in the comments?
So your suggestion is instead of any attempt at regulation people should just boycott a company years after they've already given that company their money, despite the fact that you admit n even more ideal circumstances boycotts still do not work?
That sounds like superheated water to me. When you heat water in a microwave it can reach temperatures above 100C without boiling, if you disturb the water in that state it boils instantly and explodes.
The entire premise of your comment is absurd, but let's assume for a moment we really do live in a world where a legal process can't be used unless it's successfully been used for widespread change before; what other action do you suggest people should take?
Imagine superman barging into your home with two rich kids just to say "look at this shithole, can you believe people actually live like this?" He excludes the kid he wants the others to include, too.
Plenty of words mean the opposite of themselves, so much so that there's multiple words for it; autoantonym, contranym, or Janus words.
This morning my alarm went off so I turned it off.I wanted to buy a new console as soon as it was out but they were all out.Two people were left so I left.I fought with Bob over chores, but I fought with Bob in the war.
My work offered a compressed work week for a few years where employees could work the same number of hours over 9 days every fortnight, meaning they could take every second Friday off still working the same number of hours. Employees based in NA didn't get that benefit, instead of trying to get that implemented over there NA employees were practically celebrating when the company recently scrapped it everywhere else instead.
My experience of American work culture is very much toxic crab-in-a-bucket mentality, pull everyone else down instead of trying to make work life the littlest bit more bearable, ironically directly contradicting the company's slogan. The amount of brown-nosing sycophants on all-teams calls is pretty insane too.
So yes, I very much believe this is something American media would say.
Sort of, but but really. You're right that historically the daylight hours set an upper limit on the amount of work that can be done per week for most types of work, but that limit is far higher than 8 hours per day over 5 days. The 40 hour work week is based on unions fighting for a 40 hour work week. If it wasn't for the unions you'd be working all day every day except Sunday, for religious reasons.
That might change over the next few decades too, the current fight is for a 4 day work week and studies are showing promising results there.
I think you're misrepresenting that a little. It's not peer reviewed, doesn't appear to have any researchers names attached at all, doesn't mention latent demand, and doesn't at any point consider that there could be other modes of transport. It reads to me like someone trying to sell their road building project.
There's plenty of examples of software doing this right and displaying each language in the selector in that language, it's hard to say why they've localised it here. Most likely they just didn't consider how the user interacts with that element and localised it the same way they translate everything else, but that could be down to anyone from the developer habitually running everything through localisation to company policy where they couldn't get an exception for that element.
You'd have to ask support for whatever software you're using for more detail, chances are you won't get anything useful back but if you're lucky they might fix it.
Exploiting the difference in value of a commodity between communities is a valid way to make a living, traders have existed for a very long time, though if there's little effort required the values will quickly align with each other. Turning it into an infinite money glitch by having a mint convert your raw material into coins is nonsense.
That's all still assuming the coins are made of pure gold/silver for some reason. And assuming the mint is willing to just make money for you in spite what I've already said.
Edit: And that's all if you ignore the fact alchemy, conjuration, and transfiguration exist in that universe so the entire thing is moot anyway. The angle they should have taken is that physical currency makes no sense in a world where you can just summon more, but I suppose that's harder to turn into "I'm so much smarter than the entire world".
If the coins are 100% gold or copper then you're in one of two scenarios: the value of the coin is the scrap metal value, in which case swapping between gold and copper makes little difference; or, the mint buys your scrap gold and converts it in-house, pocketing the difference. A mint has no reason to convert your gold to significantly higher value coins for you, that only loses them their economic and political power in the form of currency control.
The only way it would work is if you specifically build a world where everyone else is incredibly stupid just to make yourself seem smart.
People are always praising that fanfic for some reason so I tried reading it a while back. If it's the one I'm thinking of then hard disagree, the protagonist is a self-insert Mary Sue clearly written by a kid who thinks they're the smartest person alive. One part that still sticks in my mind years later is their fundamental misunderstanding of how fiat currency works, it was some ridiculous get-rich-quick scheme like melting down wizard currency into pure gold to sell to non-wizard community then using that money to buy silver which they'd trade up to magic society gold coins. It was some years ago so I may be misremembering the details, but there should be a ton of issues that immediately jump out to you there.
I trudged through and got as far as the first meeting with Malfoy where the author realized they were being too friendly with each other, but since Malfoy is supposed to be a bad guy they decided he should randomly blurt out something about how he wants to rape some girl.
Maybe it's just because I don't have the context of other bad fanfics, but that's a solid 0/10 from me.
The question reads like an XY problem, they describe DB functions for data structures so unless there's some specific reason they can't use a DB that's the right answer. A "spreadsheet for data structures" describes a relational database.
But they need rectangular structure. How do they work on tree structures, like OP has asked?
Relationships. You don't dump all your data in a single table. Take for instance the following sample JSON:
{
"users": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Alice",
"email": "alice@example.com",
"favorites": {
"games": [
{
"title": "The Witcher 3",
"platforms": [
{
"name": "PC",
"release_year": 2015,
"rating": 9.8
},
{
"name": "PS4",
"release_year": 2015,
"rating": 9.5
}
],
"genres": ["RPG", "Action"]
},
{
"title": "Minecraft",
"platforms": [
{
"name": "PC",
"release_year": 2011,
"rating": 9.2
},
{
"name": "Xbox One",
"release_year": 2014,
"rating": 9.0
}
],
"genres": ["Sandbox", "Survival"]
}
]
}
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Bob",
"email": "bob@example.com",
"favorites": {
"games": [
{
"title": "Fortnite",
"platforms": [
{
"name": "PC",
"release_year": 2017,
"rating": 8.6
},
{
"name": "PS5",
"release_year": 2020,
"rating": 8.5
}
],
"genres": ["Battle Royale", "Action"]
},
{
"title": "Rocket League",
"platforms": [
{
"name": "PC",
"release_year": 2015,
"rating": 8.8
},
{
"name": "Switch",
"release_year": 2017,
"rating": 8.9
}
],
"genres": ["Sports", "Action"]
}
]
}
}
]
}
You'd structure that in SQL tables something like this:
dbo.users
| user_id | name | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alice | alice@example.com |
| 2 | Bob | bob@example.com |
dbo.games
| game_id | title | genre |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The Witcher 3 | RPG |
| 2 | Minecraft | Sandbox |
| 3 | Fortnite | Battle Royale |
| 4 | Rocket League | Sports |
dbo.favorites
| user_id | game_id |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 4 |
dbo.platforms
| platform_id | game_id | name | release_year | rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | PC | 2015 | 9.8 |
| 2 | 1 | PS4 | 2015 | 9.5 |
| 3 | 2 | PC | 2011 | 9.2 |
| 4 | 2 | Xbox One | 2014 | 9.0 |
| 5 | 3 | PC | 2017 | 8.6 |
| 6 | 3 | PS5 | 2020 | 8.5 |
| 7 | 4 | PC | 2015 | 8.8 |
| 8 | 4 | Switch | 2017 | 8.9 |
The dbo.favorites table handles the many-to-many relationship between users and games; users can have as many favourite games as they want, and multiple users can have the same favourite game. The dbo.platforms handles one-to-many relationships; each record in this table represents a single release, but each game can have multiple releases on different platforms.
Usually no, unless I've left a reply disagreeing then someone else comes along and downvotes them, makes me look like an ass who downvotes anyone I disagree with. I also check my own comments to see if people agree with me but I'll keep the comment up either way, if I do change my mind I'd rather leave a new comment or add stuff in an edit.
It's not too difficult to bot votes on lemmy so they're even more pointless than they are on reddit.
I think people here might be overthinking it. It's just counting daylight hours, the solstices are the longest/shortest days. The further from the equator you are the more obvious it is. There's around 10 hours more daylight in summer where I am so you can make a reasonable estimate of the solstices without using any timing devices, most people would notice that.