He’s got 99 care-ofs but a percentage ain’t one.

I’m not debating. It is not a matter of opinion. I’m doing you the courtesy of informing you how the entire rest of the world uses the term.

If action A looks for thing X, and it finds thing X, then the test is positive. If action A fails to find thing X, then the test is negative.

If action A claims to find thing X, but later confirmation determines that thing X is not really there, then this situation is called “false positive”.

If action A claims fails to find thing X, but later confirmation determines that thing X is actually there, then this situation is called “false negative”.

That thing X may subjectively be considered an unwanted outcome has **nothing ** to do with the terms used.

Just so you know, if your doctor calls and tells you that your HIV test is positive, you probably shouldn’t run out and celebrate.

Please tell me that you are mistaken.

We are in our suffix-punk arc. We’re such word-pilled portmanteau-maxxers.

weakness of the state in the last year (Prigo’s march, Krokus

That operation was a real ballroom blitz, I tell ya.

Same. Mine is an upside down bell curve.

After all these years I still don’t know how to look at what I’ve coded and tell you a big O math formula for its efficiency.

I don’t even know the words. Like is quadratic worse than polynomial? Or are those two words not legit?

However, I have seen janky performance, used performance tools to examine the problem and then improved things.

I would like to be able to glance at some code and truthfully and accurately and correctly say, “Oh that’s in factorial time,” but it’s just never come up in the blue-collar coding I do, and I can’t afford to spend time on stuff that isn’t necessary.

Years and years ago at a house party, some woman from Cork and a friend of mine from Belfast were joking and they said, “Because Ulster says”, and I had no idea what they were talking about.

None of the answers I’ve read so far actually answer your question with basic facts.

When you invest then you are buying a tangible financial instrument: a share of a company or a treasury bill or a municipal bond and so on. There is the expectation that over time, the value of your financial instrument will increase in value but this is not guaranteed. The lack of guarantee is the risk. Some instruments are riskier than others. The level of risk does not define gambling.

When you walk into a casino and bet money on roulette, what are you buying? You are buying nothing more than a fleeting chance at winning more money. It is entertainment by thrill. There is no tangible thing that you own from gambling.

Investing is one way that companies can raise capital to expand their business. Business expansion can lead to greater employment and higher standard of living. For investing to work as an economic system there must be liquidity. Someone must be willing to buy your financial instrument later at a higher price or some town must still be collecting taxes to pay back your bond years later.

Hopefully you can see now why investing is encouraged and supported in society and gambling is either illegal or merely tolerated.

You offer an interesting vintage, but I’m going to have to resonate with you. Your ideas are just too methodology.

Even after you do, you still have to find a definition

LOL! 99% of people absolutely do not look up a new word when they hear it. If the listener thinks it makes the speaker sound smart then they get a vague idea of the meaning from context and then start using it – often in the wrong context. All the dummies of the world repeat this process and it spreads like a virus.

And thus, another word with a very specific meaning gets turned into another broad-meaning synonym. If don’t believe me I’ll caveat all over your nuances until you verbiage.

It’s also a movie too with Daniel Day-Lewis. He’s kinda hard to forget.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Left_Foot_(book)

This is a very interesting question because it ignores the way that I wander into subscribing at all

I know of some show I want to watch and then after I already know about the show then I seek out the provider for it. After I subscribe and watch the show until I am satisfied with it only then do I bother looking at other shows available on that same provider.

I usually end up watching one or more shows I never would have known about or watched without subscribing for the original show. Eventually I cancel the subscription because there is no interesting shows left.

My Maltese does not have the physical capability of harming me. No temperament test required.

Not scientific but from observing human behavior in my own weird family genetics mixup, I am convinced that creatures behavior is 80% genetics and 20% environment. And bull-breeds were bred to aggressively tear apart other living creatures.

Yes. I have worked in a financial company and a lot of teams in that particular company were structured with 2 or 3 Americans with no skills other than exposure to internal company info, the kind of stuff that should just be written down in a wiki somewhere. And when real work needs to be done they (metaphorically of course) drag an Indian contractor out of a cage who actually knows what’s going on and how to do anything. And they do it with disdain as if being a contributing member of society is a bad thing.

Just being in a meeting with some of these teams made me feel like I was a Harkonnen from Dune.

For anyone confused, they mean Cognitive Behavioral Therapy not Cock and Ball Torture or Computer Based Training.

Yeah. It’s the same technique used in horoscopes or to sell multilevel marketing vitamin pills. A collection of vague shit we’re all feeling followed by whatever they are selling. In this case they’re trading the message in for Lemmy points.

I can’t initially agree that A+ is better than A. I think A is better. So his argument falls apart right there.

Median happiness is the important factor not average happiness.