![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/41e39366-cb91-4d4a-bc07-a47621cb7d5f.jpeg)
I would use single x and y when they are meant to replace numbers, and multiple xx and yy when replacing text.
E.g.
- “We sold x books yesterday”
- “Did xx stop by yesterday and pick up the books?”
I would use single x and y when they are meant to replace numbers, and multiple xx and yy when replacing text.
E.g.
While there might be some truth to that, I don’t think MS 365 would qualify as “developed for the government.”
I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.
Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn’t open source, and therefore can’t be disclosed, since they aren’t part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of “Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities” and such.
Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.
Example: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/600410-germany-gelsenkirchen-renamed-taylor-swift/
Except for the final paragraph, it is very non-political, and easily verifiable to be true.
I want to be clear that I do not condone or support using these types of sources, since it funds non-democratic governments, but simply dismissing all of their stories as “fake news” without any further critical thinking or fact checking is not correct.
In what way is it not covered, according to you?
If the news story is, e.g., non-political, does not try to influence your opinion on something, and is based on first-party facts that can be independently verified and that are correctly represented, the source does not matter for the factuality of the news story, even if it is from a non-democratic source.
That’s covered under “Consider the source.”
The source having ties to a non-democratic government does not automatically invalidate the source, but it should make you scrutinize it more sceptically in relation to the other criteria.
It literally says “and” on the second to last row
Not to be too pedantic, but Californium is Cf
Damn right, you’d miss the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster drink before the dinner. Not ok.
ITT: People misinterpreting the idea as “facts that your school taught wrong”, when it’s really saying, “things that have changed since you went to school” (either through a change in definition or by new research).
E.g. If you went to school before the early 2000’s, you were taught that Pluto is a planet, while that is no longer true since it was recategorized in 2006.
Isn’t it also partly that as processing power increased, you could do more sophisticated compression/decompression in real time compared to previously, allowing these more complex compression algorithms to actually be viable?
I.e. they actually knew how to do it before, they just didn’t have the power to implement it
Now I imagine them just writing an incoherent string of words. “Tomato car house fireman oven duck garden rice…”
Not all diabetes is caused by excess sugar intake