Also note that this is the maximum speed of the wireless connection.

Your connection to the Internet is still limited by your ISP's speed. Nobody has an ISP that supports 40Gbps.

Here are some of the differences at "top" schools:

• Many professors are luminaries in their field. You'll be taking a class from the person who wrote the textbook everyone uses. Your next class is taught by the person who literally invented/discovered the technique you're learning that week.
• The students are more highly motivated, on average. You're surrounded by "people who wanted to go to a top school", rather than "people who wanted to go to college".
• For better or for worse, you're surrounded by wealth. Some of your classmates will have wealthy parents and connections.
• The schools have a lot more money for fancier equipment and labs.
• Companies love the prestige of hiring from top schools. You'll be recruited heavily.

It doesn't necessarily mean you'll actually learn more. Really that's mostly up to you. I do think there's a difference in difficulty and expectations for courses, but it may be that's more due to the average caliber of students being higher rather than the school actually teaching more.

Also, not all top schools prioritize teaching quality. Many small liberal arts colleges have 100% of courses taught by full professors who care about teaching, while many top universities don't prioritize teaching, especially lower-level classes, and many undergraduate classes are taught by grad students who don't have any teaching experience.

How much you learn is mostly up to you. You can learn just as much and have just as many opportunities at an average school, but you might have to work harder and seek them out. At a top school, it's harder to get in, but once you get in you'll have more opportunities.

Note that the latest medical evidence is that those old home remedies were wrong.

The general medical consensus is that there is no harm in taking paracetamol or ibuprofen to reduce a fever. It will not prolong the illness or reduce the body's ability to fight it, so it's okay to take some as needed for comfort.

Don't believe me, believe actual medical professionals from mainstream publications:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/well/live/fever-infection-drugs-tylenol-acetaminophen-ibuprofen-advil-aspirin.html

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-355008565371

I'm sure you can find some doctors who disagree. But this is most definitely the consensus of the vast majority.

That's my experience!

We like to walk to get breakfast on weekend mornings, it's about 8 blocks away. My 3yo tears out the door at full speed and runs circles around everyone for the first two blocks. Then for the next 6 blocks she drags her feet, asking us to carry her because she's too tired. We end up either carrying her a bit or stopping every block to take a long rest break.

Sure, I'm not saying you open source code produced for someone else.

Companies sometimes open-souece code that they need but isn't key to their profit. For example, Facebook open sourced React because they found it to be a useful way to build web frontend but it has nothing to do with their core business. So Facebook gets more out of people freely collaborating on React than they would out of keeping it secret.

While /u/Aussie_Mo_Bro's answer is good, I think one piece that needs more explanation is that most programmers make money by selling their time, not by selling their code.

Very few programmers write code to sell directly to customers.

Sure, it happens sometimes. There are some indie apps and games on the app store. And some programmers sell their code. But overall that's not a great way to make money.

Instead, most software that needs to be written - including websites and apps - is a means to an end. Chipotle has an app so that people will buy burritos. Avis has an app so that you can rent a car. Chipotle and Avis each pay lots of programmers to build those apps for them. That's generally how most developers make money.

To repeat: Programmers don't make money by writing code and selling the code. They make money by people paying them to write custom code for them.

So because of that, when a programmer releases something as open-source, they didn't lose anything. The code is already written, it's not going to make them money if they keep it secret.

That example is way too tame. Criticizing upper management's decisions might get you a reprimand and might make it hard for you to get a promotion but it's unlikely to be career-ending.

Career-ending would be:

• Overt racism or sexism (e.g. I don't like working with X because they're a <racial slur>)
• Taking credit for someone else's work
• Embezzling money
• Committing fraud
• Making up outright lies to explain a negative outcome (e.g. we failed to sell more widgets because our whole sales team quit halfway through the quarter)
• Offering or accepting a bribe

> The delivery service takes 18% or more from the restaurant so the restaurant is very close to making nothing on the low price orders.

This just isn't true, for several reasons.

The restaurant saves money not needing to pay someone to take the order and collect the money. They save money on their credit card merchant fees and chargebacks (DoorDash/UberEats assume all the risk).

And if it's still not worth it to them, the restaurant can charge different prices than in-store. Some restaurants near me charge 20% more if you order on DoorDash than if you call in.

It's just economics. If the restaurant isn't making enough money they can charge more. If they charge too much and people don't want to pay, then people can either pick up themselves or go elsewhere.

Do you have a source for 1.5% each? I've never heard that before and I've done dozens of real estate transactions in multiple states.

Here's a source showing 6%:

https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/realtor-fees/

In most states, 6% is common (3% each)

In California, 5% is common (2.5% each).

I agree, but I think it depends on the market.

In a hot seller's market, then indeed it can be super easy to sell a home, so real estate agents will make more money for less work doing that. In that same market, working with buyers won't be as easy at all because a typical buyer might have to make offers a dozen or more times before successfully closing, and some may never end up being able to buy.

But, the opposite can exist. In a slow market with a lot of inventory and low demand, it can be much easier to be a buyer's agent since the buyers have lots to choose from and all of the leverage.

> They don't make a commission on your buying.

No, they almost always make a commission.

Technically the commission comes from the seller. In the sales contract it typically says what the distribution is, like 3% to the buyer's agent and 3% to the seller's. In California, 2.5% / 2.5% is common.

Occasionally a seller will try to sell "by owner" and not offer a commission to the buyer's agent, but that's still pretty rare.

Nope, it hasn't changed. Each key plays a different sound (actually two tones at once), and the computer on the other one listens for those sounds.

The only difference is that your smartphone has the option of sending those sounds without playing them out loud for you to hear.

Don't you think that the current kerfuffle with Adobe shows they erred a bit on the greedy side?

Thanks, this is really fascinating.

Are you saying that a good print shop is calibrating their equipment so that it's producing colors that match Pantone in general?

Or are you saying that the graphic designer will send them the file to print and ask them to custom-match a few specific colors in the image to specific pantone shades, specific for that job?

If the latter, I'm assuming you'd pick just a couple of important shades.

Also, another question: what is your opinion on Freetone and http://adaptstudio.ca/ocs/ and other potential alternatives to Pantone?

Are they inferior in any significant way, or is it purely a question of Pantone's ubiquity and the difficulty of switching?

How much time/effort would it take to switch an existing project from Pantone to some other system?

How does a graphic designer work with colors in Photoshop, knowing that many colors can't be accurately represented in RGB on their computer monitor?

Would you look at Pantone swatches to see what the "real" color will look like, then look at the Photoshop version and imagine what the final result will look like with the real Pantone color? Basically is it mostly in your mind and your ability to imagine what the abstract digital art would look like when finally realized?

Or do you use software to try to model the resulting material and render it under different lighting conditions?

Or do you print or order samples of the target media in the correct colors in order to see what it will look like and adjust?

Or something else entirely?

I love my Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 4.

I feel like nearly all phones are exactly the same these days - just slightly different screen sizes and specs, but no actual difference in features.

It's really fun having a phone having a feature that makes it unique and different from any phone I've had before. It's a fun gimmick and it's actually useful.

As a theoretical example: one company in California orders the resource it needs from Mexico. A company in Illinois produces the same resource and sells it to Canada.

Because of evolution.

Why did our distant ancestors develop ears? Perhaps as a way to warn of approaching danger.

It's not that our distant ancestors wanted to grow ears. That's not how it works.

Some random mutation led to some organ that could detect pressure waves in air, and the brain learned to interpret that as "sound". That was a huge evolutionary advantage, so that trait survived.

Later, our ancestors developed the ability to discern between different animal sounds.

And even later than that, our ancestors developed the ability to communicate via speech.

Again, none of this was "planned". But random genetic mutations led to abilities that were advantageous to humans winning out, and that included the ability to hear.

One of the ways the genetics worked out is for certain sounds to be more pleasurable / enjoyable.

Why?

Maybe it was so we'd enjoy the sound of other humans. Maybe it was so that we'd march together with other humans because we like the sound of marching.

We don't know for sure why. But the end result is that our brains are wired to enjoy certain sounds and patterns of sounds, because it was an evolutionary advantage for us to do so.

Music is just exploiting those patterns. Coming up with new sounds and patterns that tickle the human brain.

> Look at Union station.

Which one?

Not sure if you were aware, but there are ~144 train stations called "Union Station" in the U.S. alone, and many more around the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Union_stations_in_the_United_States