xor

Did apple maps really not support walking until now?!

Twice. I did it twice.

Why not just use type c headphones?

The 3.5mm thing has always baffled me, it feels like complaining your pc doesn’t have a VGA port, except the thing you connect costs like a fiver

As people have said, it’s actually perfectly legal in the US, horrifyingly.

But the UK has very strict data protection laws which we inherited from when we were in the EU, and medical data is explicitly considered sensitive. If they actually did sell medical information, they’re in deep shit, legally.

I’m hoping that the sheer cost of executing that sort of war will continue to be a prohibiting factor like it is today

Upvoted exclusively for that 10/10 pun

I broadly agree, but that’s not what this is, right?

This is a demonstration of using AI to execute combat against an explicitly selected target.

So it still needs the human to pull the trigger, just the trigger does some sick plane stunts rather than just firing a bullet in a straight line.

You’ll love crack houses!

The panopticon is… a chatbot that suggests you get help if you search for CSAM? Those bastards! /s

“no, I won’t provide a source for my claim, because my source is not good/non-existent”

FTFY

provide the reason you don’t like those studies

They didn’t say they don’t “like” the studies though, in fact they actively said they were interested in seeing them. What’s the point of asking someone to explain why they don’t like something that they haven’t even seen yet. Sure they could go find some random related studies and then critique those but that seems pretty pointless.

Edit: since I’m whining about lack of sources, I should probably give some myself

Here’s a paper investigating the correlation (or more specifically, lack of correlation) between social media usage and mental health outcomes for young adults:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11126-017-9535-6

Yet another EU w

They’re really just regulating big tech on behalf of the rest of the planet right now

Dismissing sexism within a particular group because it is disproportionately prevalent in that group is, frankly, treating that sexism as acceptable.

You can just as easily extend this approach until you either reach a group where it’s evened out, or is the entirety of humanity.

“It’s more prevalent in stem? No, you have to look at university students overall”

“It’s prevalent in university students overall? No, you have to look at all students”

“It’s prevalent in students as a whole? No, you have to look at everyone involved in education”

“It’s prevalent in education in general? No, you have to look at public services as a whole”

“It’s prevalent in public services as a whole? No, you have to look at all non-private entities”

“It’s prevalent across non-private entities? No, you have to look at all forms of work”

No, they aren’t.

If you ask “should I make brownies or lemon drizzle cake”, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to ask “is this for an event? do the people it’s for have any preferences or allergies?”

They’re trying to work out what problem you’re trying to solve, so they can give you actually useful advice for your - frankly - very vague question

“What are you trying to achieve” is a perfectly reasonable question to ask about a deeply under-specified problem

Edit: here’s my theory:

This is a homework or interview question you’ve been asked, that depends on specific context that you haven’t included (because you don’t know what context is even relevant)

You don’t want to admit that’s why you’re asking, because you know that defeats the point of you being asked in the first place.

Hence, you’re being absurdly hostile to someone trying to help, because you can’t answer their question without admitting you’re trying to cheat

Jfc, they’re trying to help YOU specifically and you’re being a prick?