I use it for daily work too but it constantly crashes on me in the middle of the day. This also happens for colleagues of mine. Last week one colleague abruptly left a meeting in the middle of talking twice in one meeting because his teams crashed

So I see lots of seats turning blue, does this mean for example that the democrats could finally be successful at impeaching trump? Or what is the significance, besides just being indicative of a general mood shift?

Honestly though, I searched for at least 6 months before my brother in law was like “I might be able to recommend you to a guy I know at a company I used to work at” and within the month I was hired.

I think if a bear stopped their cart in a choke point in front of me, I would probably just find a different aisle

That’s why it’s better to leave things for yesterday

The continents move at roughly the same speed that your fingernails grow.

when I’m the caller I sweat a little

I too much prefer to send a text or email.

Ahh, I think I’ve been misunderstanding this side then. I thought it was along the lines of “don’t vote since both sides are bad, instead protest and riot, etc”, but it’s rather “vote for someone else”

Just to be clear about language, “lesser evil” and “greater evil” aren’t like, classifications of evil like a tier list or something, they are directly comparative. If comparing two evils and one is greater, then the other is lesser, definitionally.

I don’t know USA history very well at all, but was there really an election with a dramatically low voter turn out, which eventually triggered the civil war?

I just don’t understand why the sentiment seems to be that if you advocate/participate in more change than just voting, then you should not vote, and if you vote, then you cannot participate in change more than that. Like surely these things can happen in parallel? Try to enact real change, but also vote for the lesser evil until those changes actually take hold?

This meme would literally be funnier just as a few stickmen, one with an orange face. The AI usage is so unnecessary

The definition of famous is quite literally “known about by many people”

There are genuinely good use cases for them, just not what the hype machine has been driving

The point is that cooking was never criminalised in my analogy, only cooking with mushrooms. I also already wrote why that might be preferable to making the ban on poisonous ingredients

“Claude please read this post and come up with a clever response for me”

The company I work at has fully embraced vibe coding, so from my experience: it did seem faster at first, but also the amount of regressions and new bugs being introduced has gone up dramatically, and so the overall workflow has stabilised to be roughly just as fast as before AI, but now almost all mental energy is going into QA and reviewing. From the customer perspective, they saw lots of new progress initially, but have now been frustrated by constantly finding things broken or buggy.

And all this is at a company which has entire teams dedicated to trying to improve AI-based workflows and tools to make them more reliable.

So no. From someone in the field, quality has dropped a lot, and speed is only increased if you close your eyes and ignore all the tech-debt being created.

It’s more like banning cooking anything with mushrooms in it, because we haven’t sorted out which mushrooms are poisonous or not. You could make it more accurate by instead banning cooking with anything poisonous, but of course then lots of people will keep cooking with their mushrooms, naively thinking they are not poisonous and therefore allowed.

Not only is there no air conditioning, but the average house is really well insulated, which is great in winter but can make it really difficult to cool your house down in this kind of heat

So by the logic that only men can preach because Jesus was a man, do you also enforce the rule that only middle Eastern Jewish carpenters can preach?

If not, then it is clearly possible for people to “stand in” for Jesus when preaching, even without matching his characteristics perfectly. The decision to specifically exclude women based on that one particular characteristic is therefore obviously sexist.

What you calculated are not the chances of the opponent not beating you, you calculated the chance of getting the first hit. But it is the last ship being hit that will make you lose.

Imagine player A using a regular strategy, and B using this stacking strategy. Now imagine that B gets insanely lucky and sinks all of A’s ships except their largest one, without missing any at all (while A keeps missing all their shots). So now, even after all that insane luck from player B, who has a better chance of winning? At this point, they both have only 5 spaces which can be hit, and any hit will quickly end the game, so they both have 50% chance to win right?

This means that clearly if B doesn’t get insanely lucky in the first turns of the game, then A will have much better chances to win. A’s chance to win reduces to it’s absolute minimum at 50% when it has only one single 5-length ship left.