Kelvin is just our word for it, but that is the point of “no heat”. It isn’t arbitrary, there is no “negative kelvin” just like you cannot make something colder than absolute zero.
So if you take the difference between “coldest possible temp” and “average summer temp”, then slice it in half, you’re getting temperatures that would kill most life on earth.
Except it’s cross posts, which isn’t even a repeat, it’s just the same content. They just got their panties in a twist because the world didn’t work the way they wanted it to for 3 whole minutes.
IconTwitter seems to fit the naming convention better.
I’ve not run into this issue and use Firefox exclusively with ublock origin
210.-5.3.3
Time to get a’hackin bois.
*Laughs in blazor*
I mean, it’s dumb but I know what it is. It’s the painter for the internal frame’s title pane maximize button, which is in the internal frames title, which is in the internal frame.
It’s essentially a dumb way of writing: InternalFrame.Title.MaximizeButton.Painter
Assume it is not. If you’re asking an LLM for information you don’t understand, you’re going to have a bad time. It’s not a learning tool, and using it as such is a terrible idea.
If you want to use it for search, don’t just take it at face value. Click into its sources, and verify the information.
Eh
If I program something to always reply “2” when you ask it “how many [thing] in [thing]?” It’s not really good at counting. Could it be good? Sure. But that’s not what it was designed to do.
Similarly, LLMs were not designed to count things. So it’s unsurprising when they get such an answer wrong.
It was inevitable. We took a mishmash of things that kinda worked together with a patchwork of software and shoved it into a streamlined define with a custom made interface to tie it all together. One of those things pushes the user to learn more, and it’s not the finished and polished product.
This would never pass PR review.
This is terrible.
You should never rely on a browser interpreting a non standard use in a specific way. It can change at any moment, and wouldn’t be reliably reversed because it’s inherently non standard.
Why would Microsoft tell him what he wanted?
The spelling mistake isn’t the problem, it just makes no god damn sense.
Potentially but would you not expect one drive to at least remove the ones that it has access to?
Yeah, that doesn’t really apply to the story I was replying to. The complaint was about Microsoft not believing the user owned the account.
It’s tangentially related to the overall topic, and that could indeed be the root cause, but “they didn’t give him access because he didn’t know the new password” is security 101.
I’m honestly not even certain what you’re trying to say in that first sentence.
Almost always != always, and an individual falling for a scam where they hand off their password would typically fall into the category of “unable to prove ownership”.
No? The “root of the problem” is that the cloud service the files were stored in, was deauthed. At that point, I would absolutely expect all files to be deleted.
You can argue that M$ shouldn’t have pushed for that by default, but the problem as described is “user stored their important files in one drive, they gave away their password, password was changed, new password was unknown, one drive removed all local copies of files stored in it, microsoft couldn’t verify who they were when they called.”
Had this been the other way around, where the scammer got file access and the original user reset their password, you’d expect the scammer to have the local copies deleted… would you not?
Do you not understand what the word arbitrary means?…