People nowadays forget how shitty software used to be at launch.

Or so I’m told. I’m not actually of the generation that remembers software without an auto-updater.

Actually, CSS is Turing complete, ever since you could do math in it.

I program JavaScript for a living. I’ve noticed how I’ve become blind to my language’s idiosyncracies, but I still believe it isn’t super bad. Especially with all the new shiny features that were piled on ever since 2018-ish (I think).

It is definitely nowhere near as bad as C++. And I’m only 6 minutes into the video.

To nitpick for nitpicking’s sake: You can make Ctrl+Click work in JS.

I would like my parentheses to look normal, thank you.

*compliment

Filling the hearts of lemmings around the world with joy?

The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with the foreign policy of U.S. president Richard Nixon and his administration, who tried to make the leaders of hostile communist bloc countries think Nixon was irrational and volatile so that they would avoid provoking the U.S. in fear of an unpredictable response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

I took this introductory passage to be the current tradition. The quoted bible passage makes it look like more of a mandatory thing:

[5] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child […]; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.

[7] And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me.’

[9] then shall his brother’s wife […] loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and […] say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’

Deuteronomy 25 (Modern English)

What was particularly binary about the old mascot?

This seems to me a bit outside your usual family obligations

It was actually the law to do that, IIRC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yibbum

Just because there were no Catholics, that doesn’t mean that people weren’t violating some divine law (people also call it “natural law”). And unless you have a very specific meaning of “sin” in mind, there were absolutely “things you shouldn’t do or God will be angry”. Religion didn’t start with Jesus.

Free Speech, baybeee.

And yes, spending money counts as speaking.

I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts!

They’re ’Muricans. You gotta give them some slack. Thinking doesn’t come naturally to them.

I don’t know who is password, or why is password, or when is password, but I do know where is password, and it’s out there!

Jesus, Buddah, Spongebob! I don’t have time to be picky!

Testurteil: „Befriedigend”

A little joke for the Germans.

To save people a click: ISO is 51200 (in layman’s terms: holy shit it goes this high?) and they still exposed for 1/4s (somewhat normal for low-light photography) at an aperture of f/2.8 (gaping hole).

Suppose the average person p₀ has n acquaintances. Then a naive approach would say that each of p₀’s acquaintances (call one of them p₁) also has n acquaintances, leading p₀ with n² acquaintances of the second degree.

However, in a social network, many of p₁’s acquaintances are shared between p₀ and p₁. Let’s say that r⋅n (1/n≤r≤1) of p₁’s acquaintances are actually first-order acquaintances of p₀. The lower limit for r is 1/n because naturally one of p₁’s acquaintances is p₀ themselves.

This gives us n⋅(1−p)⋅n = n²⋅(1−p) as the number of second-degree acquaintances, if my math is mathing. Increase n for more extraverted people in the network, and increase p for more closely-knit networks.

To model the headline X % know someone who knows, we solve 1 / [n²⋅(1−p)] ≥ x where x is X% expressed as a fraction. Plugging in n=100 and p = 1/10 (I pulled these numbers out of my ass) and X=20% we get 1 / [100² ⋅ (1−.1))] = 1 / [ 10^4 ⋅ 0.9 ] = 1 / 900; again, if my math is mathing.

So this headline is true if about 1 in 900 people are in a relationship with AI.