It does. I was looking something up and ran face first into a redacted account that once had the answer I needed. I was very conflicted about it.

And to trick them into banning ranked choice voting.

Edit: spelling

Best use I’ve had for them (data engineer here) is things that don’t have a specific answer. Need a cover letter? Perfect. Script for a presentation? Gets 95% of the work done. I never ask for information since it has no capability to retain a fact.

There’s an amendment on the ballot here in Missouri to ban non-citizens from voting this year. Also to ban ever adopting ranked choice voting, but it’s really about that non-citizen thing. Totally not ballot candy to do something undemocratic.

If you’re in Missouri, vote no on amendment 7 please.

Bodybuilding and powerlifting would like a word.

This is my line for biting the bullet and switching to Linux. I hope gaming gets to where I want it to be (braindead easy for anyone with ‘actually’ on their lips)

Absolutely. I’ll poke my head in there when there’s someone on insta who I’m curious to see if they get naked on Twitter. And that’s 100% of my interaction.

When I was taking classes on similar things, ‘human performance’ was generally defined as how well an expert in a given task performed.

Porn

These. Also, random celebrity factoids (height, married, dead, etc), how long to get to some town you’ve never heard of, basic math that I’m too lazy to do myself.

Sometimes making it meow to confuse my cat.

That seems like a perfectly normal phrase…

Did you have my professor for intro to C? This guy was well known for failing people for plagiarism on projects where the task was basically “hello world”. And he disallowed using if/else for the first month of class.

A little bit of everyone? Watchers create demand for creators, which creates demand for hosts. If any link in this chain breaks, then the little ecosystem dies.

Though that’s both difficult and reductive. Punishing hosts drives watchers to shadier hosts, with creators following. Punishing creators just creates space for other creators to fill the gap with unpredictable content (be it more of the same, better, worse, or other). Punishing watchers is resource intensive to do well, so the focus has to be on the really bad stuff to get anything done. And conjures articles like these when done poorly.

My brain despises econ and I always struggle with it. But that first paragraph smells like “MBAs cooked up a justification for why they don’t pay taxes that doesn’t actually make any sense”.

The second bit makes me wonder “why don’t we have some authority on evaluating the worth of CEOs?”. Insert joke here about that worth being 0. And then I remember that the CEOs are the ones that would have to pay the government to make that rule.

A little bit. He doesn’t strike me as the type to keep the quiet part quiet.

Checks which community I’m in. Yeah that checks out.

Yeah, without that edit, I was immediately in “burn the bootlicker” mode. You make a valid consideration.

I’ve yet to see a wiki article without a shit ton of sources listed clearly at the bottom.

Many thanks. Obviously, getting brain scans of infants is… difficult, so I wonder if one could proxy that. Maybe feed it brain scans from cultures with significant gender role differences and see if any performance differences are significant?

I’d also be very curious how it sorted transgender individuals. I remember reading something years ago about transgender brains being structured like the sex with which they identify, but that was a long time ago and my critical reading skills have come a long way since then.

Clarify why that would be necessary, I’m not following your argument well.