Efficient used in a sentence

Efficient in a sentence as an adjective

> So, here's the story: He is expecting a number at around 100 miles because he thinks he's being more efficient now. He sees 50 miles.

So, here's the story: He is expecting a number at around 100 miles because he thinks he's being more efficient now. He sees 50 miles.

There should be plenty of power from the solar panels so it doesn't have to be perfectly efficient. I'm also surprised that the I-5 plan is cheaper than buying private land.

I've done both hard, boring work, and easy, efficient and enjoyable work. The easy work was both more enjoyable, more profitable and far better for my life as a whole.

It would be more efficient to pay attention to fundamental value than momentary fluctuations if they weren't guaranteed to make large profits on the momentary fluctuations. Some would still work on timing, but not as many.

But here in the USA, once you factor the need to carry back all the stuff we buy at Costco, you can see how the extra capacity of a carrier battle group would actually save you trips and, in the long run, be more efficient than a smaller vehicle. So, once you think it through, it actually makes sense.

What bothers me is that I've been forced to do manual data entry - a pet peeve of mine as a programmer - because the government has been lobbied specifically to be less efficient.

The postal service in Taiwan was always awesomely efficient when I lived there, with residential mail delivery twice a day all days of the week, year-round except for a brief set of holidays for Chinese New Year. Because I assumed that all my mail would be read, I set up procedures to check whether any of it was seized.

As such, once one is put in, the cost is amortized over 30+ year timelines, and efficient operation is actually strongly considered. Demand response and efficient appliances are actually in the interest of utilities, and they do recognize this.

That my wife finds ordering a bunch of clothing, trying stuff on at home, and returning what she doesn't want to be much more efficient makes me wonder what the future of retail clothing becomes. She sometimes even regards the "home try-on" process as superior because she can see how a new item of clothing looks with other, previously purchased garments.

That's because RC4 is the only widely-supported stream cipher in TLS. Moreover, RC4 was considered the most computationally efficient way to get TLS deployed, which 5-6 years ago might have been make-or-break for some TLS deployments. You should worry about RC4 in TLS --- but not that much: the attack is noisy and extremely time consuming.

Someone uses a new technology to create a device that could be a more efficient way of solving a current problem, and the best comments that anyone can write are complaints about how it's a bad idea or solving the wrong problem because they personally don't have this problem? What an awful way to encourage inventive people to follow their dreams and build new products for everyone.

If you really know what you're doing, a custom cache can be significantly more efficient than the general purpose kernel cache, which in turn can make significant impact on performance bottom line. For example, a b-tree aware caching scheme has to do less bookkeeping, is more efficient, and has more information to make decisions than the general purpose LRU-K cache.

But they are just tools for solving classes of problems; if you don't understand how to, as the author says by way of example, deconstruct problems and understand the advantages and disadvantages of various solutions, then the software you write will never be as efficient or as elegant as it could be. There is a compelling argument that, in the age of nearly limitless computing resources, it doesn't matter anyway.

The distressing thing is that we've been putting so much machinery into place, and gotten the noose so well fitted, that when the bottom drops out we'll only have the briefest of short, sharp shocks before we find ourselves in a terrifyingly efficient machine of oppression.

A fair and efficient editorial process should strive to replace vague rules with clearer counterparts whenever possible. Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason to delete any article at all, unless it's obviously fraudulent, marketing-oriented, illegal, or obscene according to a widely accepted definition of obscenity.

Ultimately, I think the use of advertising as a proxy mechanism for charging customers is an inefficient historical fall-out of the constraints of magazines, television, and the web. Any use of advertisement to fund modern digital distribution is indicative of one of two things: - A failure find a less round-about, more efficient, and more profitable mechanism for directly charging consumers for what they consume OR - A lack of respect for the customer and an attempt to maximize profit at the expense of their enjoyment of your product.