They aren’t?

They are buying up capacity from manufacturers who are stopping production of DRAM and pivot to HBM which is more profitable. Abandoning DRAM which affects a lot more than just “consumer grade RAM”

Perhaps over video logs they send to each other periodically…

As usual folks are blind to second order effects.

You’re most definitely wrong here because the first step is to announce something like this because a project like this requires gathering a significant number of contributors.

They’re trying to hard fork Firefox, which means they are trying to take on the engineering efforts of hundreds of full time engineers who are browser development experts. To keep up with bugs, web standards, security patches, and performance. Nevermind new feature development.

I’m pretty pessimistic about it tbf.

How are they going to maintain the hard fork when something like 95+% of all engineering efforts that support LibreWolf and similar come from the Firefox engineering team?

Mostly mundane stuff like security patches, performance fixes, and web standards features and updates make up the bulk of the engineering efforts.

Literally whataboutism

The point is the OP screenshot being disingenuous.

Your point can also be true

Literally all knowledge and understanding requires memorization of some sort and the understanding of reality and prior information.

It is difficult to fathom the level of wrong in this comment.

Here’s the thing people who lack knowledge, critical thinking and understanding about the how the world works. Still form opinions and makes decisions as if they did have that knowledge and understanding. Which negatively affects everyone else.

32/35 students here did this. That’s a hell of a lot more than just “the bad ones”

32 out of 35 students is crazy…

91% Of students not only cheating with AI. But 91% being so unaware and unengaged that they’re not even checking the work or the answers.

We are so fucked

It’s only bike shedding if the people arguing over it don’t know enough about the topic to actually make cohesive arguments.

Things like how we name things and the grammar we use are quite important in cognitive psychology. And we can take advantage of research into cognitive psychology to better improve how we write software.

The room temperature IQ cop is going to plug the phone into a system that will do that forensic detection. Using commercial or special software.

Room temperature IQ cop knows how to plug the cord into the phone and the cord into the laptop.

No, they’re throwing the book at him to make a statement.

Their argument, which is stated in the article, is that since he was not in the US (you are not considered in the U.S. until you go through border protection, even if physically here), US rights and protections don’t apply.

Similarly, this isn’t destruction of evidence they are charged for. It is destruction of property to prevent seizure. Which is a bit awkward because that’s a law in the US, but he isn’t in the US yet…?

Of course, it’s all bullshit. We all know this, but this is going to set a very dangerous precedent if it sticks.

Language translation tools have been AI-based for nearly 30+ years now (Literally, ML based translation started in the 90’s). What are you on about?

Using ChatGPT is definitely egregious for language translation with other translation tools out there, but you seem to think that translation tools using AI are a bad thing. They literally only work worth a damn because they are ML models (“AI”). And have been since they started working well…

I mean, screw performance. You can get away with a lot of shitty performance and still have a completely functional application. However, the kind of slop that happens around module boundaries that turns your codebase into a giant pile of workarounds and hacks really sucks.

And AI is particularly bad at this, as AI almost always prefers to work around a problem or do everything it can to meet the plan the user approved, even if that plan meets reality, it has problems. Which tends to lead to cascading misalignment with intentions and cascading infrastructure and architectural technical debt.

All of which culminate in less stable software, lower likelihood of long-term support of that software, and worse performance.

None of this actually proves that they aren’t writing slop. It just proves that the slop that they’ve written passes your tests.

FR. If a relationship gets to this point it’s for a reason.

If the partner is prioritizing games over their relationship or responsibilities, and is making the other feel like they have to compete for attention and time with their partners habits or addiction. They have every right to desire to leave that relationship because their needs are not being met.

It’s not a reasonable response at all. It’s unhealthy AF.

If the partner is prioritizing games over their relationship or responsibilities, and is making the other feel like they have to compete for attention and time with their partners habits or addiction. The affected partner hss every right to desire to leave that relationship because their needs are not being met in that relationship.

This is what the ultimatum is targeting. His response being intentionally obtuse and flipping it back around to the partner whose needs are likely not being met in their relationship being the problem is extremely toxic and manipulative.

Boot polish and butt paste.

Indirect corporate sympathizing is what this is.

Blame consumers for the abuse and malpractice of corporations who SHOULD be publicly regulated.

This viewpoint encourages their practices by peddling the same logic these corporations use to continue justifying their practices.

Name-calling like children do isn’t going to meme this better.