But they don’t want you to switch to “the new cool stuff”. They want you to switch to “the ad serving platform”

We’d have to ask the Supreme Court if that’s the case and the way those “super neutral judges” act… maybe we wait until after the election for that one.

If Donald is immune, isn’t Kamala immune if she orders the FBI to throw him in the brig if (please, don’t fuck this up! VOTE!) she becomes president?

Same in German.

Oh, you actually believed that story? Whoops. Sorry! It was actually me who ate your Cheetos and downed your Vodka.

It doesn’t. It will require you to reboot for every god-damned line of code that has changed.

Na, nothing. Did an update today. Nothing bad happened at al, Because why would it?

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…

Shit… I can’t believe that the author let us hanging like this… Stupid cliffhangers!

I dislike that a) it’s considered binary, while the vast majority of people will not be even close to either extreme b) people put themselves into those extremes anyway, throw around the wildest (and mostly useless) definitions of what “being an introvert” is supposed to mean, more often than not dripping with victim mentality c) people use their supposed status akin to a neurodiversity d) people openly blaming others for not being allowed to be like they are because others dare to be like they are (“I have it so hard in life because I’m an introvert in a world full of extroverts”) e) people define large chunks of themselves around some label they largely defined themselves and want this label to be respected as if it was a real thing, an illness almost. f) people define large chunks of themselves around some label that is just meant to very loosely describe some aspect of a human being’s character, not the whole human

Let’s see how many “definitions” of supposed “introverts” or “extroverts” we get this time. It’s pop-psychology BS, people. Nothing more.

If life gives you lemons, have your scientists make lemon grenades out of them

I love the smell of salmonella and the feeling of egg white clots on my skin

I like my jokes as I like two men walking into a bar: without any logical coherence whatsoever

Back in the day, when I installed my very first Linux OS, I had a wireless stick from Netgear. Wireless Drivers back then were abysmal, so I had to compile them from source (literally 15 mins after seeing a TTY for the first time). After I had found out how build-dependencies and such worked somehow and ./configure completed successfully for the first time, the script ended with the epic line:

configure done. Now type 'make' and pray

The enemy of my enemy, eh?

glibc 2.36 is all you’ll ever need, okay? Go away with those goddamn backports!

What misery are we talking about?

I wholeheartedly agree, just for different reasons than presented here. Yet, especially as long as they look like moles, posting them isn’t that bad.

I’ve never posted pictures of my child online. I don’t even post them on private chats. Just via my immich instance to his grandmas and aunts.

So because you don’t understand which feelings this almost blind ugly little meatbag in that photo represents, there will be those who do and who will share the joy, making the world a little less depressing as fuck. Which is a benefit. But of course,. because you can’t understand that, no one possibly can.