You may have missed "also." The comment does not suggest replacing the current list.
Worth noting, the existing list dies actually appear to cover both known working and known not working apps - apps that do not work have their names given in ~~strikethrough~~.
In college, in my intro to Java class, I had a program I'd written that I was trying to show someone. Every time I ran it (in Eclipse) it crashed. It had worked earlier, but was then consistently crashing. Looked at the stacktrace, looked at the code... No issues I could spot. After quite a while of poking around, with the file reverted to its original state and still failing, I did a select all, cut, paste (into the same file), and it started working again.
Some people have posted pictures in the thread now, and it looks like you might be correct. Seems odd - the blowhole is analogous to a nostril. Sucking something against your nose a swimming seems like it would be uncomfortable.
Under water, with no hands, how are they getting the fish in place? And perhaps more difficult, how do they keep it there? Anyone aware of a video?
Saw the movie today. I concur with this astute review.
I would say there were maybe (maybe) 4 spots where it made sense to put music, and maybe 1 or 2 of those where the scene and music were done well (graded on a favorable curve). Then about 20-25 places they jammed bad music for what felt like no reason other than to slow down a movie that already wasn't going anywhere.
I just saw it today. Can confirm - it's bad. Bad enough I'm upset it exists, because it practically taints the first.
The plot is pretty weak, and to make it worse, sporadically there are flashes that make you think it's finally building towards something, and then it just fizzles.
With very few exceptions, the songs are bad both in terms of the music and the lyrics, and they slow the movie to a crawl.
Additionally, Lady Gaga's lip synching is shameful, especially considering she's most famous for music. Her performance is otherwise fine, but it feels like they could have put anyone in there. She didn't bring anything to the role.
Joaquin Phoenix's performance is pretty good, and the cinematography is good. But... Don't see it. Definitely don't pay for it. I wish I had my money and my time back.
I've personally lived in places where the closest convenience store was 2.25 km, and the grocery store was nearly 18km, as well as places where a convenience store was literally a part of my building, and grocery stores were walkable distances.
The U.S. is enormous and varied. Take a look at truesizeof and compare the U.S. and Europe (don't forget to add Alaska and Hawaii - they won't be included in the contiguous states). Consider how different London is from rural Romania.
The president's "official act" would be issuing the pardon. The referenced Supreme Court decision just means it would not be a "crime" for the president to issue said pardon, not that the pardon would stand.
The president can't intervene at the state level. From americanbar.org:
A U.S. president has broad but not unlimited powers to pardon. For example, a president cannot pardon someone for a state crime.
This ignores the first part of my response - if I, as a legitimate user, might get caught up in one of these trees, either by mistakenly approving a bot, or approving a user who approves a bot, and I risk losing my account if this happens, what is my incentive to approve anyone?
Additionally, let's assume I'm a really dumb bot creator, and I keep all of my bots in the same tree. I don't bother to maintain a few legitimate accounts, and I don't bother to have random users approve some of the bots. If my entire tree gets nuked, it's still only a few weeks until I'm back at full force.
With a very slightly smarter bot creator, you also won't have a nice tree:
As a new user looking for an approver, how do I know I'm not requesting (or otherwise getting) approved by a bot? To appear legitimate, they would be incentivized to approve legitimate users, in addition to bots.
A reasonably intelligent bot creator would have several accounts they directly control and use legitimately (this keeps their foot in the door), would mix reaching out to random users for approval with having bots approve bots, and would approve legitimate users in addition to bots. The tree ends up as much more of a tangled graph.
This ignores the first part of my response - if I, as a legitimate user, might get caught up in one of these trees, either by mistakenly approving a bot, or approving a user who approves a bot, and I risk losing my account if this happens, what is my incentive to approve anyone?
Additionally, let's assume I'm a really dumb bot creator, and I keep all of my bots in the same tree. I don't bother to maintain a few legitimate accounts, and I don't bother to have random users approve some of the bots. If my entire tree gets nuked, it's still only a few weeks until I'm back at full force.
With a very slightly smarter bot creator, you also won't have a nice tree:
As a new user looking for an approver, how do I know I'm not requesting (or otherwise getting) approved by a bot? To appear legitimate, they would be incentivized to approve legitimate users, in addition to bots.
A reasonably intelligent bot creator would have several accounts they directly control and use legitimately (this keeps their foot in the door), would mix reaching out to random users for approval with having bots approve bots, and would approve legitimate users in addition to bots. The tree ends up as much more of a tangled graph.
Yeah, moving the table was my first thought - felt very much in the spirit of the show. I also expected the hose to have holes, and/or be blocked in the middle. Having a functional hose in the far left bucket felt too easy.