My new car came with terrible tires that have little traction, but I just buy a new set. I don’t say it’s a crap car just because they cheap out with the stock tires on it. I love the car.
Keychron on that workstation and be done with it.
You can be non-autistic, or you can autistic. And if you are autistic, you exist somewhere on the autism spectrum.
If you are not autistic, you are nowhere on this spectrum.
Strong dislike for papers that tell me what to do in the title, especially when even the paper admits a loose correlation of the intermediate tokens compared to solution correctness.
My solutions work and they speak for themselves.
If “terms are simply created for understanding”, then why is their misuse so unimportant? Isn’t the whole point of a term’s use in understanding only obtained with the proper usage? Isn’t improper usage actually creating confusion and misunderstanding?
Shouldn’t you care?
Autism being a spectrum doesn’t mean it is not a true/false. Both can be true. You can either be autistic (somewhere on the spectrum) or not on the spectrum at all.
Asahi Linux is NOT an option and may never be one due to: The A18 Pro (and M4) introduced SPTM — Secure Page Table Monitor — which runs at a higher privilege level (GXF EL2) than the OS kernel. Unlike M1/M2/M3 where m1n1 can directly chainload Linux, on A18 Pro/M4 the page table infrastructure is owned by SPTM and must be initialized by XNU before anything else can run. You cannot bypass it. (source: https://github.com/rusch95/asahi_neo)
More like the inverse. No true Scotsman seeks to remove someone from belonging to a group to keep the group pure, because no true member of that group could act in such a way.
This is adding people to a group that they would otherwise be excluded from. It seeks to expand the definition of the group to include the outsiders.
This was not poor design, but a decision to restrict the user from copy pasting entire articles and the like. Most unfair and this iPhone 3G to iPhone 17 Pro user is seriously considering ditching them over select all
It will give the user lower quality if it finds them “distressed” however, choosing paternalistic safety over epistemic accuracy.
As a user gets more frustrated with the system, it will pick up the distress signal even more so, a kind of feedback loop toward degraded service quality.
In my experience.
That’s because the goal of these psychiatrists that wrote the study is to scare people, by using technically correct scientific terms that mislead people into thinking that their hesitation to accept “low-quality” studies is the same as their being evidence that cannabis does not work.
Technically yes, but most would consider an opt-out some tiny little nearly illegible that confuses the user into allowing it without deselecting. This is a clear choice given to the user. No gimmicky opt-outs.
As an added benefit, being annoyingly healthy and so proud to announce your superiority to the world will make you smarts smell so fine, you will capture them in a sniffing glass, just to savor your good habits