Both would be far too small, in oil terms. Think of all those wasted zeroes.
Even a barrel is quite small, and if anything a larger unit would be better for oil trading. But barrels do have the benefit of being well-established.
Will be very interested to see the outcome here.
But... I have always felt that the meaning of many of these expressions can be very context-dependent, and so any kind of definitive probability ranking is not possible. But still interesting!
Never doubt McCartney. If to us the song sounds "stupid", "half-arsed" or "like a very deliberate mockery of his own talents", we must remember that he's the visionary and we are just little worms in the mud.
In that scheme it is then just the "genuine" all rounder that is someone who gets in either way.
Of course, that way you have to conclude that someone like Moeen Ali (28 bat, 37 ball) was not actually an all rounder. But maybe that's actually right.
The other definition that you see is of course "batting average is higher than bowling average".
That's also not totally solid if you start picking at it. But it stretches enough to account for bowling all rounders (28 with ball, 33 with bat) and batting all rounders (36 with ball, 41 with bat).
If the case had a 5% chance, say, it was worth pursuing given the sums involved. My guess is that it was one of those behind the scenes, but we are unlikely to know.
Judgments always seem obvious after the fact, and if one thought it was obvious beforehand one naturally feels vindicated.
I think Pannick overstated it in public, but the case was arguable and we don't know what was said in private. Not much else can be said.
I come across this kind of question at work, in the context of disclosures in financial documents.
Having a yardstick works if both the writer and the reader have agreed on it. It doesn't work unilaterally. So not for financial disclosures, and I think also not for public health communication.
In 2008, the banks that failed were pure high street (Northern Rock) or pure investment banking (Lehman). They were less resilient.
The connection between Glass-Steagall and the 2008 crash is essentially just a folk legend.
Ingesting the raw data itself involves making a copy on your server.
Most internet use involves copying, and therefore relies on exemptions, or implicit/explicit licences, but those ~won't cover AI training.
(I am not the copyright lawyer you seek. But one has explained it to me.)
Extremely mainstream voter.
I'm not sure where you'd start? It's mostly driven by the sun, one way or another, so to brute force it, in energy terms you're competing against the sun.
And subtle interventions to steer it must be tricky, because it isn't very predictable. Cloud seeding is like this, but very local.
I know it was a dance banger back in the day, but I think we should get a girl to sing it slowly, like an elf.
Steak and chips is... a salad?
Is a Lord Chancellor a "Chancellor of the Lord type", as per natural word order, or a "Lord of the Chancellor type", with inverted word order as per attorney general?
Or something else?
Obviously the second word in these "Lord" cases is not an adjective, which is normally what is at the heart of this stuff, but I expect the same principle applies if the second noun is the attributive noun, rather than the first noun as per usual.
I don't think they're disagreeing with the theoretical point!
They're just putting some numbers on it. I think it's quite interesting.
CRTL ALT DEL already doesn't mean what it used to. Now it's just a shortcut to get to a menu, like a hundred other shortcuts. Its true meaning, its true power, has been lost to time.
Maybe so! Although things like this should be centralised, so if that isn't organisationally possible then that itself is a problem that should be addressed.
Maybe, though that is a (bad) choice made by the organisation.
This also really shouldn't apply to high-level policy decisions taken at management level. They take advice and decide, and if the process was correct then no one's job should be on the line just because the ICO later disagrees.
Though for an organisation like the NHS, you'd think they'd have a direct line to the ICO and would just come to an agreement about what they can do in certain cases, rather than using a "just in case" conservative approach.
Agreed. GDPR applies to a huge variety of different circumstances and so is necessarily drafted at quite an abstract level. Words like "necessary" and "legitimate" can be interpreted in many different ways.
So it's inevitable that some interpret it conservatively.
Serco's product is "winning government contracts", and that's all it's set up to do. It only does anything else as an incidental function, to the extent necessary to win more government contracts.
Tired, but still correct.
I think the problem is that government does not seem to have a good understanding of *how* to deregulate. They want to thumbs-up/down whole regulations, but much more often it really needs line-by-line de-bloating. Which takes time and effort, and is less flash.
Interesting, though hard to disagree as the exchange is described here. Context is always key!
How often did people say no to the Pepsi?
A law should be passed about this. If you ask for a Coke and they have Pepsi, they can give you a Pepsi without having to ask.
Incredible man-hours to be saved. Could have a noticeable impact on GDP.
I feel Sherlock Holmes has earned this in a way that One Day has not.
Fascinating.
I would observe that, within narrow bounds, the exact date of an old person's death can sometimes depend on care decisions taken by family, or by doctors with input from family.
An interesting topic anyway. GDP seems to be one of those things that is a clear, simple concept at the highest level, and the more you get into the details the more it seems like it's all falling apart into an incoherent mess.
