Evasive answers like “we really can’t know what will happen in billions of years”? xD

With our current understanding, the universe is a vulnerable place. Heat death of the universe may be a thing that’s inescapable.

No, we haven’t. There are several good alternatives.

Clothing (pants) is very much not natural and indeed only enforced by society. If one knows about various indigenous people around the world, one knows pants are not universal.

I actually, in this heat, would love not to have to wear pants or anything really. I’m naked at home all the time. However, if I went outside it’d be indecent.

The thing is, are they really leaving money on the table? Higher prices means less customers, yes, but also higher profits per unit. We don’t actually know right now how many people would be willing to pay these new prices: if it costs twice as much but half the customers are still fine buying it, then profit stayed the same. And with no choice, I suspect much more than half are going to pay double.

Of course, the people who wouldn’t do that are a potential market, but they are also a much lower profit margin. Comparably, that’s probably not that much for these people.

The problem is not doing it, the problem is feeding an AI generated text here.

When I pirate something, I have no clue what company or service it is from. How is it giving them a platform?

Dude, it’s ok to be wrong sometimes, no one would judge you :) In fact, it’s a sign of strength to be able to admit you’re wrong, and people will like you more for it. It’ll also be good for you personally as you will be more effective in more things :)

It does. I’ve been using it as my secrettool for quite a while instead of kwallet in KDE kwin wayland.

Yeah making this into a man vs woman thing is stupid, I took the original post just as a person saying “people can have different kinds of intelligence, everything should be respected”

You have no idea what is actually true. All of what you said could later turn out to be false, once we learn more about the universe. So while this is a fun speculation based on current knowledge, it may effectively be completely useless in the future. And right now, it doesn’t even give any actionable arguments for anything.

Instead of letting the large language model think for you, I would suggest to try critical thinking for yourself. I sincerely mean this in a kind way, because if you continue with this, you may become a drone like the ones we talk about here, and I wish that on nobody. I know this current path is easier/more convenient, but sometimes one has to choose the harder path to arrive at a better result.

That’s what they’re saying:

When deployed, the soldier is launched into a designated hunt-zone. He navigates purely via visual landmarks. His brain constantly screens the nerve data from his eyes. When an object matches its classification matrix (e.g., a specific mobile missile launcher), the organism locks onto the pixel coordinate, arms the ESAD, and executes a terminal dive completely dependent on human input.

Katy, take your spork and get back into your own shower.

That is just wrong though. There have been plenty of reputable studies with good methodology that do show differences between the sexes at certain tasks.

That does not mean that one or the other is better in general, it means women and men complement each other.

It also doesn’t mean that these innate advantages/disadvantages at certain tasks are significant enough so they are impossible to overcome, there are plenty of men good at communicating or whatever, even though women are generally slightly better at it, and so on.

I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.

But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?

The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.

That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than explaining the issue and saying what needs to be done instead.

Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes “non-shit”(using your terminology) code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?

Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.

Not YouTube, Soulseek. Nicotine frontend. Use a VPN.

Wait you’re telling me that women are better? So that differences between the sexes exist?

But if you use this app, you would be using BT, so turn it on…