Assuming it’s not just an act because he doesn’t think he could win another election if he openly supported Trump.

If you remember this the next time we loop around, ask her what 100 times 10 is supposed to be then.

It’s interesting that they are able to come up with creative and intelligent experiments that would serve as evidence or proof one way or another but then often won’t even trust their own results.

The ones just trolling I can understand. Maybe it’s all of the ones doing experiments.

I’m curious how effective those bans have been. Is free porn difficult to access in states that have added verification laws or has it only affected the larger players that get attention while the ones that most people don’t usually think immediately of fly under the radar?

Holographic bullets aren’t really ballistic. The borg might have been able to adapt. Though if they were fooled by holograms and force fields, an anti-borg program could have been made that makes them get stuck in an endless non-euclidean maze (and I mean one of the interesting non-euclidean spaces) or just tear them apart by having dozens of force fields pop up through their bodies.

With all of the hologram projectors they had in Voyager, not to mention the portable one, they really didn’t explore the tactical advantages they could give. You could literally make any boarding party believe they had transported to hell, or let them run around thinking they are winning and took over the ship when they are actually just standing around in the brig–or airlock.

Or have them board only to hear “warp core damage critical, breach in zero point–” then give them some kind of afterlife sequence where they settle into their new afterlife and pass time telling each other about state secrets they were privy to, now that it doesn’t matter anymore.

It’s kinda funny that they had holograms but didn’t really ever explore any post-facts kind of themes, other than using holograms on less advanced species.

Does grapheneOS have paid devs or is it all volunteer work? And if they do pay devs, how do they get the money to pay them?

And as a follow up question to this, are there any container apps to run those apps that won’t work in a way that they think they are running on stock android?

If the authors believed magic and the gods to be real, would ancient works like The Epic of Gilgamesh or The Iliad count as science fiction?

It depends on why you want to avoid being wrong.

If it’s just about being a good person by your own standards, then I’d agree that you can follow a moral code that doesn’t line up with any community you’re a part of.

If you want to avoid your communities turning on you, which could mean anything from silent looks of disapproval, reduced willingness to cooperate with you, complete shunning/exile/boycott, being targeted for others’ immoral acts, or legal consequences, then it’s a good idea to at least be aware of the differences between your personal morality and that of those around you.

And even if it’s relatively safe to follow your own moral code today, that doesn’t mean it will still be tomorrow. Even for “sins” committed today.

Yeah, words aren’t determined by dictionary committees or English teachers. They are determined by people using and understanding them.

All languages (other than ones designed deliberately, like Esperanto, Klingon, and Tolkien’s elvish) started from the same root and diverged when populations reduced regular contact and all words and grammars were made up along the way.

If a shortcut creates ambiguity, then the only way to avoid that ambiguity is to avoid the shortcut.

You can try to define it a certain way, but it won’t work if it depends on people seeing your definition because most people won’t see it. And even if they did see it, they’d need to agree with it.

Personally, I’m not a big fan of interpreting single letters as the name of the letter instead of the sound, unless it’s an initial. I don’t feel strongly enough to complain about it if I see someone use “u” instead of “you”, but your post made me realize I don’t even think of “why” when I see y, I just think “yes”, though context probably affects that.

Oh yeah, you just reminded me of how unusable teams was for scrolling back up in a chat to look at older messages on a slower machine. Skype was at least capable of that because it had the history stored locally. But teams unloads the message as soon as it was out of view and needs to fetch it from the server and must have done it very inefficiently because I started giving up on checking chat history until I got my newer machine.

Or:

Hey, check out the new calendar! We have <features>! Want a tour?

No, you’re describing features that have been in it for a while now, it’s not that new anymore

A few days later: Hey, check out the new calendar! We have <same list of features>! Want a tour?

Still no, and I don’t mean later, I just mean no

The first time I saw excel open in a web browser, I was impressed that they managed to get it running in a web browser but also appalled that they wanted to get it running in a web browser for actually using it in a web browser instead of just for the novelty, like running doom on anything with a cpu and display.

First thing I do whenever a document opens on the browser version is click the buttons to open it in the native app if I intend to edit it.

They made it shitty to try to justify making it a subscription.

LaForge and Troy: What the fuck!?

Riker: Holy shit I’m glad I’m not you right now.

Fuck! It is fucking possible to commit no fucking mistakes and still fucking lose. That is not a fucking weakness. That is fucking life.

Hmm might have gone a bit over budget there, but fuck it.

That’s the worst when your cycle time is very long. You fix a bug in the code, start your test running again and come back to check the next day only to see the exact same bug again and might think that your fix didn’t work and something more esoteric is going on (“maybe it’s a compiler or hardware bug!” (It almost never is)).

Then you add a bunch of debug prints to really get a good idea of what’s going on and rerun the test. Either you remembered to save and suddenly the mystery bug is gone because the fix is still in the code. Or maybe you forgot to save again and now it looks like it’s not even reaching any of the code you added the prints to.

Thing is, if it just guesses what you meant instead of sticking to the standard, you can end up with ambiguous meanings. Like what if you forgot a character that wasn’t a semicolon but inserting a semicolon would turn it into valid code?

Like:

x = y z++;

Inserting a semicolon would turn that into set x to the value of y and then increment z. But maybe the line is missing a plus instead of a semicolon and the intent was to set x to y plus z and then increment z.

It’s a pain but strict syntax helps avoid frustrating to debug bugs.

Taking it a step even further, you can make your code more robust by treating warnings similarly to errors. Even though the general cases usually still work despite warnings, they are great for avoiding edge cases that can also be difficult to debug. At least if you take the time to understand what the warning is really about and don’t just google “how to get rid of warning x” and add some casts or something you don’t understand to make the message go away.

My interpretation of it wasn’t meaningless.

Like my search for object algorithm goes like:

1. First look where I expect it to be. It’s not really missing at this point.
2. Then I think of whether I can remember putting it somewhere different and check there. If it doesn’t turn up at this point, I now consider it missing.
3. At this point, I’ll make a mental list of all of the places it makes sense to be and search down that list.
4. If it’s still not found, then I’ll start just looking everywhere until either I find it, get distracted by something else, or give up on finding it.

I always thought of “it’s in the last place you look” in terms of the list in #3. You think of 5 places it might be, and whatever the order you check them in, it will be in the 5th location you check.

Your interpretation sounds more like it’s in terms of #4. Or maybe #3 but checking each place as you think of it instead of building up a backlog.

Careful, stroking your ego like that puts you at risk of violating this law.