Government jobs love them though, Security+ is required for a lot of DoD jobs.

If it’s repeated offenses like the example in the article, it’s a little harder to prove it wasn’t intentional.

I mean, the game is good, but you can see the spike in steam charts right at the point it was announced for EVO. Like outside the initial release, the game averaged under 20 players. After that they spiked and then just slowly got back to averaging less than 20 players the last few months.

I like the game, but it’s not comparable to the other successful indie titles like UNIST or Skull Girls. Yeah it kills punch planet, but outside the first few months it released to may 2021, it did similar numbers.

It was mainly due to them embracing rollback net code and being part of EVOs line up during covid. Problem is that the big fighters revised their netcode since then and it’s been relegated.

The apps using GPT4 without regards to safety can be though. Example: replacing human with chatbot for suicide prevention.

You are probably right. Devices like these in the old days used to require you hook up an official controller to it to get past the drm. Likely will evolve back to that.

Search xbox mouse adapter on amazon. There are so many products that do what you describe people wouldn’t care to do because they don’t care.

The 1m was confiscated because it was ‘illegal income’, not because he used VPN.

Yes, it’s still shitty that using VPN to access GitHub makes his income illegal

using VPN … makes his income illegal

Yes, they fine wasn’t a flat 1m or whatever, but because he earned it while using a VPN on and off(cuz the great firewall periodically blocks github). None of that would of happened if he didn’t use a VPN, so saying that the direct reason he’s in trouble isn’t why he got punished is less honest.

If your complaint is about how the number was determined, perhaps it would be better as “Chinese programmer ordered to pay entire income(1m yuan) for using Virtual Private Network.” Honestly, either headline is fine as long as the details of how that number was chosen is in the article.

It’s a contract thing called detrimental reliance. As I understand it, basically you relied on a promise to do something only in the event the promise was upheld then it wasn’t. It wouldn’t hurt to speak to a lawyer for a consultation. I doubt you’d get the job back, but they could be liable for the damages caused by moving.

Why not do both?

You are probably correct. I don’t know if it’s true, it’s probably more likely it was a way for it not to fail.

I said HTTP mainly because HTML is plaintext because of it. 1.0s main purpose was to manipulate the page. Of course Array objects weren’t added til 1.1, when netscape navigator 3.0 released, but it was still mostly 1.0 code. I felt like having everything be coercable to string made it easy for you to just assign it to the document. If you assigned the wrong thing it wouldn’t crash.

I originally thought there was a precursor to microsofts XMLHTTP in an earlier version due to the 1997 ECMAScript documentation specifically talking about using it both client and serverside to distribute computations, but it was far more static. So, I’m probably just wrong.

Mainly because JavaScript was designed to work along side HTTP in a browser. Most of its input will be text, so defaulting common behavior to strings makes some sense.