xor

I think that’s the case given that the headline says “they saw the Ukraine war coming”, implying it’s referring to the period before the war began

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.

Two important persons from US history, a deity and a little penguin

It’s just a shitpost, not a declaration that Trump was some great American historical figure, chill

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.

NPR & BBC are probably the closest we’ve got so far - they’re both state funded, but editorially independent (theoretically). There’s still some influence from the government, but it works pretty well.

Edit: public-funded news outlets definitely work best when they’re part of a larger system including other models of governance (like independent non-profits) as well.

The test team, standing half inside and half outside the eclipse: uncannyuncanny picpic

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

I’m don’t understand, what are you referring to?

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”

That’s nice for you

Good News by Mac Miller is beautiful and tragic, even moreso after his tragic early death

Ayyyyy

The original example was doing the unwrap_within an iterator doing some string parsing, so there was a lot of unrelated boilerplate around the actual unwrapping that made it really unclear, as well as usual unwrap_or_else to produce a constant value

Ehhh, I was more using get_default as a placeholder for some function, as opposed to representing Default::default for the inner type specifically. I think it should be alright since only people familiar with rust would know about the default trait anyway. I did consider adding an unwrap_or_default example, but thought it was getting a bit off topic at that point.