The one that lists sheets is at least using a verifiable metric. It’s better than the “right rolls of unspecified size are more than 39 different rolls of unspecified size”.
Still silly because no one knows how many sheets they use before changing the roll, but at least it’s reasonable silly.
It’s super annoying, because that term should belong to “if you’ve got an hour we can grab coffee and I’ll explain my politics to you. You don’t? Uhh … ‘rather to the left’?”, and not “I’m fine with the gays and poors, but I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the government helping or protecting them”.
We have a code of conduct training at work that includes and anti corruption segment (nothing weird, just stuff like “a vendor buying lunch at a sales meeting is fine, but no gifts or having lunch at extremely expensive places”, and “some places give small symbolic gifts around holidays, usually a pastry. That’s fine. Do not accept a $500 pastry”)
A couple years ago they updated the module and the person engaging in non-obvious corrupt business practices became gay in passing. The overwhelming response by a lot of the company was “yay! We made it guys! They realized that we like bribes too! I feel so seen”.
I think we’re just at a point where a company not constantly trying to find ways to squirm out of every single thing is a breath of fresh air.
“Hi! We’re valve. We’re mostly following the law without fuss, mostly make money by getting people to buy things they want, and our excessively wealthy owner acts like a preposterously rich person, not a comic book villain: Fantasizing about living his life isn’t deeply concerning. The hardware we sell isn’t deliberately worse for consumers to no benefit to ourselves” – Hands down one of the best “big” companies out there.
The annoying thing is that the credit cards fully support authorizing for some amount likely to cover the transaction and using the same transaction to capture so no lingering auth sits around.
If a merchant has captured the funds and still has a hold sitting around the someone has implemented something wrong.
I thought the same thing about the steam deck and it turned out to be entirely fine.
This is basically cutting the screen out of a steamdeck so I’m pretty excited for a good controller.
I thought the same thing, but per it’s suggestion I tried using it for fine tuning on the steam deck and I was pleasantly surprised. I’d never use it for for large motions, but on a game designed with mouse motion in mind it can be a little tricky to get those fine motions locked in.
I tried with portal and it made it a lot easier to get little adjustments lined up that were tricky without it. Since it exclusively kicked in when I wanted it to it wasn’t as wacky as a lot of gyro controls are for games that focus on them, and I think it was as simple as “press your thumb a bit more roundly onto the joystick”.
It’s not going to supplant the mouse for fast precise motions, but it at least means you can skip the wild overcorrection that sometimes happens with joystick on unoptimized configurations.
And they clarify that you can choose to have them not do that.
They don’t. They’re saying they don’t have it.
It’s because people looked at a line of a diff without looking at the actual context.
It’s like finding the line in a diff where someone deleted a call to “check password” and concluding that this means the service is no longer verifying passwords.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/
We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.
Basically, they consolidated and clarified their data privacy policies to be legally accurate. People took a content change to be a policy change on the assumption that you can’t just delete words in one place and put new ones somewhere else.
Well, there was nothing stopping anything from doing it before, they just didn’t know there was a desire for broadcast, or for the broadcaster to be uninterested in the connection of the listener.
A lot of the protocol is about making sure that things are authenticated and private. You don’t want a second set of headphones connecting without your knowledge usually.
This also lets you broadcast audio encrypted, without drowning out other radios, and keeps the listener from being able to do normal pairing tasks like “download contacts”.
It’s obvious now, but that’s only after years of everyone walking around with small radio linked ear pieces.
The reason it exists primarily is so that music venues and museums and such can provide broadcast audio for accessibility and just in general without requiring people to use their janky headsets from the 80s. Once it exists and is actually in the hardware for the Bluetooth chips, the work to plug together a UI for it is relatively small for what looks like a big feature.
It also has some pretty good power savings over actually pairing a device, since neither device is looking for return communication to any significant degree, and it’s geared for not giving the headphones device control in the way that a paired device gets.
Overall it’s a good innovation, but not the most clear to market how you’ll use it every day.
Yup. The actual sources of world hunger aren’t material but systemic. So it’s not as easy as just “giving everyone food”, but the more complicated “give everyone access to a robust agriculture supply chain”.
Fortunately, giving 1-2% of people fertilizer and some work animals might be a bit more complicated, it’s significantly cheaper.
Honestly? If it’s what gets people to be fed, I’m okay with doing it because people starving is bad for the economy.
I’d rather we did at least the bare minimum for the right reason, but I’ll accept the wrong reason. At this point, hoping for more than the bare minimum seems unrealistic when we’re most likely to get the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
It depends on which type of ai upscaling is being used.
Some are basically a neural net that understands how pixelation works with light, shadow, and color gradients and can work really well. They leave the original pixels intact, figure out the best guess for the gaps using traditional methods and then correct the guesses using feedback from the neural net.
Others are way closer to “generate me an image that looks exactly the same as this one but had three times the resolution”. It uses a lot more information about how people look (in photos it was trained on) than just how light and structure interact.
The former is closer to how your brain works. Shadow and makeup can be separated because you (in the squishy level, not consciously) know shadows don’t do that, and the light reflection hints at depth and so on.
The latter is more concerned with fixing “errors”, which might involve changing the original image data if it brings the total error down, or it’ll just make up things that aren’t there because it’s plausible.
Inferring detail tends to look nicer, because it’s using information that’s there to fil the gaps. Generating detail is just smearing in shit that fits and tweaking it until it passes a threshold of acceptability.
The first is more likely to be built into a phone camera to offset a smaller lens. The second is showing up a lot more to “make your pictures look better” by tweaking them to look like photos people like.
Nope, this one is real, just weird looking people and poorly upscaled.
News article from 2016: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/11/obamacare-repeal-republicans-president-obama-veto-health-column/78597014/
Original image:
Reference portion that was particularly mangled:
Mangled, but still recognizable as just … Funny looking people.
Except for this guy:
He doesn’t seem to have been mangled at all. Just looks real weird.
It wouldn’t surprise me, but I haven’t heard anything like that. Tough production schedules are a great way to cause incidents.
You’re lining up for a strawman. I very clearly stated that fault was with the owners and management for not enforcing safe operating procedures.
I disagreed that the gap in regulation was likely because of safe storage quantities, and more likely because of a failure to enforce safe operating practices.
Don’t make it out to be like I’m saying nothing could have been done to save these people’s lives.
I’m saying expecting an explosives manufacturer to have less than what’s used in a typical charge onsite at any moment is unrealistic, as is storing reasonable quantities such that catastrophe is impossible.
Any storage and manufacturing practices that could give you those guarantees would also require a rigorous training process and strong safety culture with well defined and enforced procedures and safeguards.
theoretical customers that for some reason are warehousing unsafe quantities
What, in your mind, is a reasonable and safe quantity of explosives to warehouse for the manufacture of bombs?
By their nature, bombs contain an unsafe quantity of explosives. Safety comes from handling, not saying you can only have half of a 500lb bomb at a time.
Oh, totally. It’s by no means a good measurement, it’s just the only one that’s in some way tied to anything tangible. “8=39” doesn’t mean anything.