…that was the point?

They’re making this argument about Ukraine, and yet are perfectly fine with the US on their doorstep.

Shows that this isn’t about the US, but about getting stuff from Russia.

US military aid to Seoul, on the other hand, is a brilliant strategy….

I grew up in the cold war. I’ve done the drills. I know both what the fear of an all-out nuclear holocaust is, and I know that the reality will be something entirely different.

Did you not see what happened to Russia’s latest Satan II ICBM? Thankfully that one wasn’t armed.

That’s a good line to use on Putin.

Realistically, if Putin uses the nuclear codes, this is what happens:

A few warheads in Russia explode in their silos and the government blames the West. A bunch of ither warheads are harmlessly shot down. A few actually find their targets and a few million people are wiped out. The west retaliates and suddenly the war is over.

BICS then becomes ascendant in global power, China claims Taiwan and the Philippines and possibly Japan, and Israel is wiped off the face of the earth as all sides turn it into a nuclear slag pile, killing Israelis, Palestinians and a large number of Lebanese and Syrians in the bargain.

Then things adjust to the new normal and economies rebuild, with the noted absence of Russia and Belarus.

Balanced for inflation?

Spot-on.

I spend a lot of time training people how to properly review code, and the only real way to get good at it is by writing and reviewing a lot of code.

With an LLM, it trains on a lot of code, but it does no review per-se… unlike other ML systems, there’s no negative and positive feedback systems in place to improve quality.

Unfortunately, AI is now equated with LLM and diffusion models instead of machine learning in general.

So… the winning strategy is to overestimate them?

You can be legally deaf and still able to hear sound that’s really loud. Just like you can be legally blind but able to make out really vivid and bright images.

It’s a well documented issue tied directly to gambling…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgfaSLO_T4A

Personally, I’d just limit it to feeding them data that a large undecided segment believes a few provably false outlandish things, so that they publicly endorse said things when they could be spending time doing something socially destructive.

There’s actually multiple questions here.

The hiring process has an application “filter” layer, a candidate selection layer, and THEN the interview with the person/people who actually want to hire you. Sometimes there’s an extra technical interview after that.

These days, the filter layer is mostly automated. Asking the filter why it didn’t select you is like asking a Machine Learning model why it chose to do something a certain way — you aren’t going to get a useful response.

So the only way to figure it out is trial and error: vary your application in terms of structure and content until you find the combination that makes it last the current batch of filters.

OR

Find a way to skip the filters altogether by finding someone on the inside of the company to flag up your CV to the people looking to fill the position.

Once past the filter, you get to HR, and if you get this far, asking questions about why you didn’t get selected to continue will actually be met with a useful response (unless it’s a company you don’t want to work for). HR will tell you the basic things they’re looking for in an application, and possibly how you compared in certain criteria to the stronger candidates.

Next you get to the manager. If you get this far, you can usually have this discussion at the end of your interview. They’re looking for fit for the role, and you can ask questions about fit as part of the interview process.

And finally you get to the technical interview. If you get this far and don’t get the job, the reason why is usually fairly obvious: either they had someone who was both a better fit AND understood the problem domain / demonstrated an ability to learn and reflect the team culture better, or you failed to prove technical ability in a key area.

“Please beware,” he went on, “that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.”

What people don’t quite grasp is that he means exactly what he says.

He considers, for example, being a lawyer to be “unscrupulous behavior”. As is donating to anyone but himself. Or voting for anyone but him.

Depends on how many ants and lions were present.

No, he stuffs a whole bunch of animals in a ship on a mountain, and months later there’s only 2 of each that come out. After which he dismantles the ship as his friends and neighbors laugh at him.

It must be so easy at this point… Russia can start a rumour and then get American pundits to authoritatively go along with it because it reinforces what they want to believe.

I had kids so that others don’t have to.

I like my kids, but I don’t like most other people’s kids. So yay, DINKs!

I get 4 weeks, plus sick days, plus parental leave, various types of training days and charitable days, plus a 2 week carry-over and I’m neither American nor European.

Just remember that there’s a difference between good,truthful information from untrusted sources and mostly truthful information designed to deceive or misdirect.

I see enough “news” presented inaccurately from “trusted” sources to take all reporting with a grain of salt, but also find value in reading reports from varying viewpoints to try and identify the actual established facts.

The part where the headline is supposedly about the first time humans have experienced it?

The content is fine… the formatting and headline are atrocious.

Fuel? I’d go with “implement step one of” myself.