So you’re mixing up two different meaning of AI to say that AI doesn’t mean the same thing everywhere? When people are talking about bats, the flying mammals, do you also interject with “bats are use to hit a ball” to make some point? No, because deliberately mixing up homonyms is stupid.
It’s pretty clear what kind of AI people are talking about here. Nobody was discussing game AI.
Genuinely not sure if joking or actually dumb.
Depends on what we consider wrong. Could you pull a car that way? Theoretically, yes. Could you save energy that way? No, because the car driving in front would have to do extra work to overcome the magnet pulling it towards the car behind. You can’t cheat the first law of thermodynamics.
You’re not the only user. Other people may benefit even if you personally don’t. Getting software you don’t want is a compromise for getting an easy out the box installation that comes with what you want already pre-installed.
If you want a more personalized approach there’s always forking a distro and customizing it so that it suits your needs (which is how Nobara came into being).
Well I tried and failed to find any other reason for your comment beyond plain spite. Maybe instead of trying to put others down you take a hard look at yourself, because you’re coming across as a complete piece of shit.
I think that’s the joke. Media presents time travel as just inputting the date and off you go, but really you need to input time AND space because the two are interconnected.
Of course we could just imagine that all time machines somehow calculate the space itself just by knowing the current spacetime and the inputted time, but now we’re giving writers too much benefit of doubt. In most cases time travel is used as plot device and very little thought is given to how it could work.
And an interesting sidenote. This also means that teleportation is a special case of time travel and if you’ve solved time travel you’ve probably also solved teleportation.
But I’m that case if Linux gets 1 new user and windows gets 10 then proportionally Linux usage would decrease despite the absolute number increasing.
I would argue the absolute number is meaningless because without context that number has no value. If I tell you there are 3.4 million Linux desktop users does that number actually tell you anything? Not really. You don’t even know if it’s a lot or not because you have no frame of reference. 4% already has that frame built in and gives you an indication how Linux stacks up to other desktop OSs.
I think it depends. I’ve had a non-technical PM and he was great. He knew he knew nothing about development and as such did what great managers do, create an environment where we could work as efficiently as we could. If we said it takes X amount of time he wouldn’t try to squeeze out a faster deadline, he’d report “it will take X amount of time”. If we said it’s unreasonably to take feature Y in he’d say we’re not going to take feature Y in.
IMO it’s much harder with PMs who did some development 20 years ago and “know how things are done”. The ones with some technical knowledge almost always butt in.
You’re thinking of the problem with modern solutions in mind. Y2K originates from punch cards where everything was stored in characters. To save space only the last 2 digits of the year because back then you didn’t need to store the 19 of year 19xx. The technique of storing data stayed the same for a long time despite technology advancing beyond punch cards. The assumption that it’s always 19xx caused the Y2K bug because once it overflows to 00 the system doesn’t know if it’s 1900 or 2000.
I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be a mockery of misogyny (or the more general toxic masculity). The Sigma male term was supposedly describing a social outcast who doesn’t play the social game but still somehow wins the social game, and thus gets respect and women. Obviously the internet ran with it because it hits the sweetspot of stupidity where it becomes funny
Of course some people actually believe it and use it unironically, but it’s mostly about mocking the supposed Greek lettered male classification. Then again memes change in time and maybe it is returning to its original toxic meaning.
You apply anyway because half the time the things jobs “require” is the same marketing fluff they add everywhere. Similarly to you I have a hard time bullshitting because I try to be honest about what I know and what I don’t, and for the first few years of my career I was incapable of bullshitting. Then my credentials were required for a project and I had to sit down with a sales person to “fix up” my resume. It went something like this:
“Was Power BI used in this project?”
“Well, yes, but I didn’t really use it. I opened it maybe once.”
“I’ll mark it down as experience with Power BI”
Really opened my eyes to how things get done. Some of what gets added as “requirements” tend to never come up. During an interview it’s always worthwhile to prod a bit at the requirements to see what is and isn’t bullshit, because I guarantee there is always some bullshit that you will never need.
Similarly don’t be afraid to bullshit a bit on your resume because you can’t know everything about everything. Bit of technical jargon but I’ll get to the point, I swear. My first job switch was for a position that required experience with microservices. This was in the early days when people were still figuring out what these mystical microservices are. I was then working on a project that was using a microservice architecture, but I never felt like the project was getting any real benefits from that decision and the applications didn’t feel “micro”. Nevertheless I put it down as experience and I rationalized it as it’s experience either way. If it’s done right and I see it done the same way in a different project then it does mean I have the experience. If it’s not done right then I’ll have the experience of how it could be done wrong which means I still have some experience. Kinda BS but it landed me the position. I then learned that my experience was both right and wrong, so I quickly learned from the mistakes of the previous project, learned how to do it right and applied them in the new project. In the end I was highly regarded in the project despite at first feeling like I bullshitted myself in. As long as you’re willing to put in the effort to overcome your shortcomings you’re allowed to bullshit a little, because nobody cares as long as things get done without huge issues. Just don’t sell yourself on things you know you can’t overcome.
YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER AND YOUR FATHER SMELT OF ELDERBERRIES!
You’ve clearly already checked out considering I’m not even the person who insulted you. Here’s an idea, maybe don’t partake in conversations you’re not going to bother to even pay attention. I guarantee you’ll automatically come across as less of an asshole.
You don’t think that for the copyright laws to change we also need to change how we view it? How could you be properly critical of the copyright law if you refuse to make the distinction necessary for a certain type of criticism?
I get the “that’s not how the world is” argument, but you can’t talk about how the world could/should be by using only the word that describe the current state of the world. If you want to be critical of the existing system you need to develop a vocabulary that allows for such criticism.
For instance if you don’t make the distinction between the creator and copyright holder you can’t make criticism such as “you shouldn’t be able to copyright works that you haven’t created”. You can’t tell the difference between copyright owned by the creator and copyright owned by copyright owner because those two people are indistinguishable, so the entire criticism becomes nonsense.
Also the game itself is very much an allegory about life itself. The entire game can be a profound experience if you let it.
I would say so. I can’t put my finger on what the problem is but whenever I hear Silverhand I just feel disinterested about everything he’s saying.
WE’RE WATCHING YOU. SCUM.
Why would it? If they’re open for discussion there’s clearly something to discuss.
Actually, without any other context, I would. I would label them as misguided. Just because they believe in what I believe as the wrong thing doesn’t mean they’re automatically toxic. If they’re unwilling to even consider alternate perspectives or decide to just be antagonistic then they’re toxic.
Maybe in some very broad strokes, but in very broad strokes legs and cars are also the same because they move you from point A to point B.