ceejayoz

Devs are expected to test on the latest OS, and this is a dev tool?

> There are already a bazillion ways to do this.

Which means non-technical ChatGPT users are a bit bewildered as to how to pick.

This makes that easy; I suspect normies will fucking love it. My boss will.

"Bob is persistent" typically means he completes tasks (or pesters people, if it's not desirable behaviour), not that he's occasionally non-corporeal.

> whether this would count is borderline

This is 100% fair use by the standard.

Persistent in the lay meaning - they're told to complete the task, and they keep going until they have.

You should operate on that assumption, yes, unless you wrote or have reason to deeply trust the code running on it.

If the phone company turned bits of it into a transcript for me, yes, I would.

Tutorials are often written in an imperative style that's a little like prompt injection. There's a lot more writing out there on "how to make a todo app demo" than for the complex shit.

Or that there are a lot of very basic React tutorials out there.

Like how half of PHP's problem for a while was w3schools.

> That's what lawyers and judges are for. To argue over and interpret the meaning of laws, regulations, contracts, constitutions.

That doesn't mean we can't learn from mistakes and make certain things clearer.

I think the Founding Fathers would've had some thoughts on Flock cameras and Facebook.

Are you saying "the impact of Chromebooks, specifically, is unknown" or are you saying "the impact of Chromebooks is known to be better than the overall average" here?

No, you're asking someone else; I'm just pointing out why it's a bit of a pointless ask.

Plenty will say yes. We know this.

One of the Constitution's big failings is this sort of thing; deeply vague wording. What counts as interstate commerce? What counts as reasonable? What's considered press activity? What's considered illegal speech?

If you were writing a new one today, you'd define some stuff more.

> In other words, now it's as likely to get your phone searched as in 2020.

Do you think these are random searches?

One of my kiddos loved SnapCircuits. Similar, but more kid friendly.

https://elenco.com/snapcircuits/

> It was basically a group-think public lynching…

You’ve essentially described the ending of every Survivor episode.

> they certainly wouldn’t have safety concerns as grown up (mostly) men from a small girl

I take it you’ve never had to contain a raging toddler.

> degeneracy… literally sodom on earth

> like a public lynching

> all hyper liberal... the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not

I'm starting to wonder what "some normal thing you did" entailed.

You'd have to block the conversation itself for that to be meaningful. Which would lead to a not very useful conversation.

Incompetence can result in cases that don't go to trial, though.

Not every problem is best addressed by a top engineer.

Plenty of the tasks that keep a company running can benefit from good-enough (and better than the competition).

> It sounds like a clown-show…

Well, the President wants to redesign the Navy to look "cool" - battleships, carriers with steam catapults again and center islands. Why not the Air Force too?

I'm sure they run every model they can get their hands on in internal clusters.

They likely also have dedicated and separate clusters for their own use.

Iran both lacks the capability and has been heavily sanctioned for decades for their actions.

> You made my point for me, thank you.

If your point is "we can't tax people because estimates aren't perfect", sure. But it's a silly point. We already tax people off estimates - if you own a house, your property taxes are assessed in exactly this fashion - an estimate of its value.

> It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.

No. It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.

> For example, Tesla shares owned by Elon don't have the same value if Elon is leaving, they are less worthy.

This is, ironically, more of a guess/estimate than determining Musk's net worth is. We don't actually know that!

It has its own Wikipedia article.

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

That the estimates vary a bit on the edges doesn't mean they've no value. It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.

> Even accepting the notion that a small NASA pay-for-performance program = "subsidy" = Falcon 1 (with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course), name the subsidies that resulted in Falcon 9, in vertical-landing Falcon 9, in Dragon, in Crew Dragon, in Starship, in Starlink, in Starshield.

Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

"Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services."

Tesla received low-interest loans (and tax credits for their customers). SpaceX was given funds (that'll be "direct government expenditures") to develop the Falcon 9, Cargo Dragon, and Crew Dragon (and now the lunar lander). Those funds were not conditional on completion of the program (as we've seen with Starliner); they were R&D funding in milestones in hopes of a functional spacecraft at the end.

> with Musk throwing his entire $100 million fortune into starting a cockamamie rocket startup despite having zero experience in the field having absolutely nothing to do with the rocket meeting the program's goals, of course

Again with the strawmen.

"You got subsidies" and "you had nothing to do with the success" are wildly different statements. You can be both an extremely hard worker and supergenius and still need government support for your very expensive good idea.

> Your implication is that every single thing Musk and Musk's companies are doing today—Dragon, Crew Dragon, Falcon 9, Starship, xAI, Tesla, etc., etc.—are "subsidized"—again, with the "sacks of free money with dollar signs painted on them" connotation—because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago.

No, the opposite. Falcon 1 is the single least subsidized part of it. It was the one big bit Musk completely self-funded.

They demonstrated an ability to get to orbit (after almost going bankrupt), which gave NASA the confidence to subsidize them in a larger project.

Please, read, then react to it.

> many, many people are going to take away from that that "Musk received $38 billion in grants, gifts, and otherwise free money from taxpayers"

Maybe you're projecting your own beliefs about government subsidizing things a little on other people. The government made a risky bet; that's one of the important things governments exist for. Sometimes they pay off (SpaceX), sometimes they don't (Starliner).

Perhaps the next time someone correctly notes SpaceX got subsidized you might lead with the clear positive cost savings you eventually defended them with?

> What was your purpose in insta-citing that article…

It was the first reputable source that came up in Google? It gives several specifics that directly match the Wikipedia definition of a subsidy?

> because of that Falcon 1 program two decades ago

Falcon 1 got them the subsidies. It was the most unsubsidized part of SpaceX!

> If believing that makes you feel better about the accomplishments of someone you admit to greatly disliking, congratulations.

I can be a big SpaceX fan and still wish the man running it hadn't gotten brainworms.

> And before you deny doing so, you are the one who wrote…

Why would I deny that? I asserted Starlink has been subsidized, and stand by that claim. I'd thought we'd settled that point handily by now.