erezyehuda

I think a big part of this topic discussion is that there's a LOT of value in those- that many disagreements are simply down to having a different understanding about context and facts, and that giving the other person the benefit of the doubt can help people navigate those. It actually seems like one of the most relevant cases to me.

It says in the bill-

> (d) "Social media algorithm" means the software used by social media platforms to (1) prioritize content, and (2) direct the prioritized content to the account holder.

Merits of the bill aside, I think the headline is spun in a way to make the bill seem totally witless, when it's not. There could be more specific wording, of course, and debating the actual merits of the bill is always fair game, but the title reads as if someone just said "Algorithms are bad for children!" and left it at that. The bill is clearly about content prioritization targeted at minors.

It's kind of hard to assess what impact you'd see, but for me, changing teams has ended up giving me a chance to work with new tech, a broader understanding of our system overall, and it's been a good chance to get to know more people. To be honest, I'd recommend periodically rotating teams, even if things aren't bad on the current one. It's really kept things fresh for me.

I can't help but notice that your link to New Secret Santa is under the "old" subdomain.

If I recall correctly, Netflix paying to not have their data rates throttled was a real occurrence.

I was literally just looking at this for the same reason. I'm sure it's a bit silly and sentimental, but the notion of there still being a living connection to them in the world makes me feel they're not entirely gone.

It seems like you read more cynicism and hostility in the previous comment than was actually there.

Sadly, I can still imagine someone crashing into a static car on the highway. I can imagine normal-speed continuation, mid-lane stopping, and attempting to navigate to the side of the road all seem to have some pretty heavy risks. I do wonder if a low-speed continuation would be in any way suitable.

Getting to the side of the road seems like it could be pretty risky for current autopilots, though perhaps things are further ahead than I know.

It's kind of funny- I assume other people will assume I'm not productive at home, so I end up hyper-focusing on getting things done when I'm working from home just to prove I'm not slacking off.

Yeah, I definitely get what you mean. I try to see if there's merit in what people say, even on occasions where they forgot their manners at home (as I've done plenty), but in this case, they didn't bother to justify anything here. It makes me think there wasn't really much thought behind it past the craving to be rude.

I'm sorry to say it, but that framing actually makes me see more merit in the comment you're responding to, when I didn't much before. I'm of the opinion that people do deliberately lie to themselves, quite regularly. To me, it's a fundamental part of cognitive dissonance. Whether it applies here, I don't know, but now I have to consider it.

Dijkstra gave pretty concise justification for 0-indexing, so I wouldn't reduce it down to "authority" for why people use it. While I'm personally comfortable hopping back and forth between conventions, is there any deeper justification for using 1-indexing? "Vast majority of people" seems like the same meme you're rejecting for 0-base.

Costs aside, wouldn't replacing carbon emissions with methane be drastically worse? Doing a casual search says that methane is 2000-3000% more potent as a GHG.

He can send messages at his discretion. With Twitter, however, tweets are (in this case) considered public announcements, with blocked people being exceptions on a personal level, and the ruling is that he is not allowed to make those exceptions. He still has access to direct messages, AFAIK. With Slack and Facebook, I can imagine comparable situations arising with similar principles.

No red square for me. Using a recent Firefox on OSX.

Looking again at what you'd put earlier, your acknowledgement very much seems to have the not-total-impossibility of them being correct as a throwaway caveat, not as a real consideration of the situation in any sense. I suspect that it being used now to address that they were using sloppy wording is a retroactive understanding after I pointed it out, and by luck is a plausible explanation.

I get the feeling that you misunderstood what they were trying to communicate and prioritized literal word usage over context. They should not have said "quite authoritatively". Using "quite correctly" would have been better. "Authoritatively" was a sloppy substitute for emphatic correctness.

I'm not sure I'd say "one or more times" really sums up going dozens of times, as umanwizard said they have. While I'll give you that we don't know if they have a PhD (which, sure, would be more definite authority), evidently they have the means to travel extensively, which could well put them in more diverse areas than someone from Mexico would go.

What do you mean by "answers cannot be edited"? They definitely can be, and not just by the person who posted it. I've updated an older answer or two.

Pretty sure C-b,[ will do that.

I don't think making an good buying decision should need to take subliminal cues into account, like someone predicting a storm by a sudden shift in wind behavior, and forcing your customer base into this buying paradigm is a huge risk for resentment and product dissatisfaction.

Does anyone have a mirrored or cached version of the post?

All they need to do is open the developer console, which is probably better anyway.

The very existence of RunScript combined with the ability to rebind functions makes this impossible, I think. Unfortunately, I'd guess that, at this point, those features are too tangled into the game to be easily cut out.