No, but it doesn't mean the other answer is invalid too. If there is no reference in the picture to tell what kind of light condition it was shot at, both answers could be possible.
The yellow background could be lit by another window or a different light source, so one could argue we don't have a good reference to tell. But the point is that the "picture of a thing" is not "the thing" itself, and there is always a possibility that they are different.
You missed the whole point. If I take a white dress and then shine a blue lamp on it, then take a photo.The pixels will be 100% blue, but would that mean the dress itself is blue?
I think the idea is they are too lazy to work for rent. If they really wanted they would go to work and not be homeless anymore. And if they are not able to find any job, they can always do forced labor in a prison system. That's how it was in the USSR. People in power really like this kind of a system
There is no threat at all, russia is just trying to bluff a stronger position ahead of inevitable negotiation rounds. To claim more benefits and more territory. They won't be doing anything against the US no matter what. Maximum cut some underwater cables and tell more nuclear threats like they always do.
This is a very dangerous way of thinking. You cannot tell at the time of discovery if specific research will be useful or not down the line. You need to advance the research in all directions, even if some of them seem silly or useless, or else you will handicap your progress in other fields which you didn't see the connection with at first.
It's the other way around, you will get all of the tickets which are missing plate info. Some guy did it and regrets it, there is a documentary about it.
I remember when Falkon 9 was doing its first landings, the whole YouTube comments section was filled with flat earthers claiming it's a CGI. Now you can take a car and go watch landings in person, I wonder where all those people went.
The same law which makes gun recoil happen. If you fire a pistol in vacuum you would still get the same recoil or even stronger. The rocket engine fires a lot of gas molecules instead of bullets at much higher velocity than a bullet, which gives it the constant push/recoil
Centrifuge spins really fast so you need to balance where you put the samples, or else it will vibrate. The trick is to put them on the opposite side or equally spaced apart from each other.
I can't quite understand what is your point? Are you arguing that both JVM and WASM are bad? With this I agree, they both have terrible performance and in an ideal world we wouldn't use any of them.
Are you arguing that JVM bytecode is better than WASM? That's objectively not true. One example is a function pointer in C. To compile it to JVM bytecode you would need to convert it to the virtual call using some very roundabout way. But in WASM you have native support for function pointers, which gives much better flexibility when compiling other languages.
You can't compile C to java bytecode, they are fundamentally incompatible. But you can compile C to wasm, which is what you want for a good universal bytecode. Java is shit.
No, but it doesn't mean the other answer is invalid too. If there is no reference in the picture to tell what kind of light condition it was shot at, both answers could be possible.