C# isn't exactly compiled, at least not into machine language. It is transpiled into byte code that is run on a virtual machine that on turn is an interpreter/JIT-compiler.
Depending on why someone is asking for a compiled language that may or may not be a problem, because to the one writing the code it looks like a compiled language, but to the one running it it looks like an interpreted one.
It's fantasy comedy. It is to fantasy novels what Spaceballs is to Star Wars.
And which country are you from that you think you are entitled to throw the first stone?
Unless you actively pay attention it's very easy to be logged into some Google service without noticing. At least I wouldn't be surprised if chrome background services kept me logged into my work Google Mail account and kept tracking my IP.
The biggest question is how meaningful the IP alone is. I don't know if VPNs assign people individual IP-adresses or if there's some kind of NAT in use where people share an IP with translated ports. If the information is "there's this individual VPN-user and we need to connect them to a name" then you shouldn't use (the same) VPN for everything, but if it's just "there's another request from the same VPN" then it's fine.
I don't know. A VPN simply replaces your IP with one from their network, but you still have one IP that identifies you, right? So if you are using one tool to access YouTube while being logged into Google on your browser, doesn't that defeat the purpose of the VPN? I mean if Google just stores the IPs that were used to log into accounts they can simply look up who downloaded their videos, right?
Pretty much, but that explanation is way more complicated than it needs to be.
The image of "trickle down" compares money to water. If you drop water somewhere it will move downwards. But for some reason when people talk about trickle down economics they think that money will trickle down from the people will lots of money to those with no money.
If you go back to the image then water will trickle down to the place where all the water has ended up before, i.e. the ocean. Expecting money to trickle "down" from the rich to the poor is like expecting water to trickle "down" from the ocean to the mountains.
And there are lots of obvious reasons for that. A poor person will have to take a loan from time to time which means that they have to pay for no lasting value in return. They will also have less opportunity to save money by buying things in bulk or waiting for discounts. A rich person on the other hand has little reason to pay workers for something that does not end up making them more money.
OF COURSE trickle down works! I just don't understand what's going on in people's minds that they believe the rich people (i.e. all the water) were at the top of the image.
There are lots of reasons why money trickles down from the poor to the rich. Expecting money to trickle from the rich to the poor is like pouring water into an ocean and expecting the mountains to get wet.
I tried using Osmand recently and unless I got something very wrong there is no free version to speak of. You get 6 free map downloads, and those maps are tiny. And when I deleted a map it turned out that it's literally 6 downloads. Even redownloading the same map counts towards that limit. I was expecting that deleting a map would allow me to download a different one, so that the limit would only mean that I can have 6 maps at a time and change them every now and then.
With this limit the app is only useful for people who stay in the same area all the time, and then you don't need a navigation app.
Can you elaborate?
I doubt that this move has made them much more "safe and controllable", it just means that they depend on a different system. I mean as soon as a bug pops up in their software the rest of the world will be fine.
I'll never understand how this image wasn't ridiculed from the start. I mean if you are talking about "trickling down", wouldn't the bottom be the place where the thing that is trickling down collects?
Of course money trickles down, it trickles down from the poor to rich.