998244353

Sounds like people applying to thousands of positions based on only keywords to stay competitive.

One common explanation to such things is that it is a filter: if a person doesn't notice something like that, there's a good chance they won't become suspicious later either.

It's always strange to think that we went through formats like XML (and even earlier, XDR) before inventing something as seemingly simple and obvious as JSON.

If you follow the trail of links (or directly go to https://www.facebook.com/dyi), you can request a detailed report. I have my doubts about on how complete this is, but in my case, the only thing I saw from Firefox were ACTIVATE_APP events; based on the timestamps almost definitely all from my phone.

I'm the same way. I discovered that taking notes was a fairly effective way to make sure I actually thoroughly read the material and that I don't just lapse into skimming the book. Not sure how important doing them in handwriting was, but it felt more useful.

I heavily suspect that "number of replies" is exactly the type of thing that creates an unpleasant atmosphere, unnecessary conflict and promotes ridiculously radical views and hot takes to the top. People like to argue, and the more objectionable a tweet is, the more they will argue.

Of course, this is great for user engagement, but it will also make the actual user experience pretty horrible.

Not GP but I use a similar setup. I have an "extended" US keyboard layout where AltGr+(location of character on native keyboard layout) types the character. For example, AltGr+[ is "ü". I find this more convenient than the compose-like approaches suggested elsewhere in this thread.

I use it because programming language syntax is mostly ergonomic only on US-like layouts, e.g. typing "{" causes a lot of strain if you have to do it on every other line.

Probably because it is dead in a large number of places (e.g. I haven't used SMS in the last 10 years for anything except these automated things that sometimes are sent), and people tend to generalize that to "outside the US".

I imagine that if the structure of a human brain was well-understood and mathematically describable the way NNs are, generating adversarial inputs would be completely feasible.

I know two separate people in real life that are in their twenties but don't look a day over 14. I don't know if it is some hormonal thing or just extraordinarily youthful looks.

I don't think they are necessarily dismissing fiction as a whole; rather it seems they are dismissing what they see as the shallowest form of reading - reading only fiction and even then only books that are most likely written to be as appealing and captivating as possible without necessarily having much deep content.

Oh god yes. Facebook and Messenger have so many such bugs, coupled with general slowness and clunkiness. Having 80k employees would sound so much more reasonable if all of Meta's services worked really well; right now it seems more like they do the bare minimum.

I don't know if these things become fundamentally hard to fix at their scale, like it's possible that a "hide" button becomes too hard to properly implement if your feed suggestion algorithm has to handle millions of users at the same time. It's possible, but sounds hard to believe, because a lot of the quality has degraded in only a couple of years, and they haven't become orders of magnitude larger in that time.

Of course, it would be very reasonable to claim that they simply don't care. But their websites do keep changing, so it's also not like they have decided to halt development of this part of the UX and simply focused on doing advertising right.

Personally, I still suspect that regardless of their motives, there's a high degree of corporate inefficiency.

One quite perplexing common theme is "thing gets flagged -> thing gets resolved by a human as a false positive or whatever -> two weeks later, thing gets flagged again with no change, presumably by an automated system".

If the flagging is done by a human, is there really no "case file" that records the previous flags and why they were false positives? If it is done by an automated system, why is it allowed to flag things that a human has already cleared with no change?

My only rule with goodie bags is that the sponsor items should be things that people will need anyway and that need to be replaced often or you need multiple of.

Good examples are pens and spiral notebooks, one can never have too many. Really bad things I have gotten are rubber wristbands and a "phone holder" that was supposed to hold the phone in place while charging.

Also emphasis on the "replaced often" part. Most people will probably use a bottle opener or a keychain thing, but they only need one. What is the chance that they needed one right before the event and that they will keep using the one the event gave them? Or for example, water bottles seemed like a cool idea when I first got one from an event, but now I have 5 water bottles with sponsor logos and I still only use the one that came with my carbonated water maker.

Having never owned or set up this kind of Christmas lights, I'm curious. What exactly is it that makes people think they need such "adapters"? Do they have female plugs somewhere? Why?