waqf

Recently I searched Google for a slightly unlikely phrase — in quotation marks — and Google proudly told me that my phrase was grammatically correct.

And nothing else. They didn't give me any search results. Or even tell me there weren't any results. Or even give me a button to press to say "no, I really wanted to search the internet for this phrase".

And also I have zero interest in Google's opinion on English grammar and am frankly insulted to be offered it, although to be fair I'm probably in a minority worldwide on that one.

If I can't use Google to search the internet for things, then Google is eventually going to have a big problem.

Moving to another country is a nightmare because you cannot bring your phone number.

I am currently paying for a US phone number I don't meaningfully use, because it's not clear that all of my important account-holding organizations reliably support a two-factor/login confirmation strategy that isn't "US phone number".

My experience is that the major limiting factor in finding partners is whether people "click" with me, not whether people are single.

In other words I'm better off going to an event with my kind of people and looking for the 5% that are eligible singles, than going to an event with singles and looking for the 0.5% that are my kind of people.

Obviously this would be different if you're a person who likes almost everyone and is attractive to almost everyone — a golden retriever, as it were. I offer no opinion on whether many such people exist.

Arguably the problem is that copyright enforcement has been farmed out to private middlemen with a fast and loose process.

Do you still feel uncomfortable if you cannot see outside the train at all (i.e. not even in peripheral vision)? My understanding was that the effect was caused by the scenery outside the window moving in a way that's incommensurate with what your sense of balance is telling you.

Discreet users, or discrete users? (I initially assumed you meant discreet, i.e. not wanting to share login details, but the comment read oddly as a result.)

I assume you're referring to the graph on the page you linked. Is there an explanation somewhere of exactly how it is calculated?

I tried to read the "article" underneath the graph but it just seems to be a disjointed collection of assertions strung together with inappropriate connectives and insane formatting.

Every rational number is a p-adic number (though not necessarily a p-adic integer, of course). So doesn't that mean p-adic numbers would be below rationals?

This is speculative and based on a possibly not-representative sample, but what I've noticed from watching bodycam footage is that when the suspect asks for a supervisor, the police give negative/discouraging replies to the suspect while they are also calling a supervisor in the background.

I assume the intention is to comply with the letter of the law while maximizing the chance that the suspect will abandon the request and not force them to wait until the supervisor arrives.

You're an AI, aren't you?

Strictly speaking they're all non-piano intervals, just some are more non-piano than others. (Or you can retune your piano …)

The mute on the touchbar on my MacBook Pro has a slash when unmuted (and also when muted).

It looks like this unmuted: https://discussions.apple.com/content/attachment/e909bffc-81...

and this muted: https://discussions.apple.com/content/attachment/e3e9c230-e4...

I believe the reason it always has the slash is to distinguish it from the "change volume" button (which, when pressed, pops up a volume slider). But it's still confusing.

There's an impressive amount of detail about what was actually wrong with the system in the judgements from some of the previous cases; I think the main one is this one: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/3408.html

My impression is that it's a technical case (not just about software, but really also about how accounting evidence should look) and that it was subverted by misleading testimony from the needed expert witnesses.

I don't disagree that the UK needs to take a long, hard look at its judicial system, but what system is safe from this kind of problem and how so?

Triple damages, that reminds me of something … if you happen to live in Massachusetts you might be able to send them a Chapter 93A letter (which entitles you to triple damages if they don't attempt to settle in good faith)

> it endears users

This time I am speaking solely for myself, but your grammar alienates and enrages me.

I watched the demo video but I can't get over using E in the bass in bar 5, where D would normally be expected. (Yes, it should be possible to use chord V11 here instead of IV if you really want, but you would need to fill out the harmony a lot more to make that work, not just the bass line.)

You only have to counterfeit it to the standard of Amazon's returned-items check though, not to the OEM's standard.

The point is to find a way to have the 90% questions answered by a machine, and the 10% by an expert human. And LLMs are (another step towards) making it hard to argue that this isn't feasible or isn't a good experience.

Meanwhile, on the London Underground, the lengths of all sets of stairs down to platform level are described as "equivalent to 15 floors" irrespective of how high they actually are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBTvmrRGlbE&t=41s

You're organising the office dinner party and each employee has brought exactly one spouse (who is not an employee). You wish to seat the attendees alternating employees and spouses, perhaps so that the spouses feel maximally included and nobody starts a work-related conversation.

Read this and see whether you think the same: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/know-your-amphetamines

'Kid gloves' are fine gloves made from the skin of a baby goat. Not from … whatever you thought.

No, we're just in an equilibrium where everyone reclines. To be a PD it would have to be better for everyone if nobody reclined.

We're in, perhaps, a tyranny of the majority, but those are everywhere. As I'm sure you've already noticed if you're 6'6".

Seat pitch has decreased significantly since the internet was invented. It's hard to take seriously any discussion that doesn't take that into account.

(Also, a lot more people have laptops than in the '90s. IME it's not possible to use laptops in coach if the seat in front is at all reclined, though I seldom see this mentioned.)

I don't want you to query my packages and I don't want your help to invite people I know to your app. That sounds like a feature that was made for your benefit, not for mine.

So it seems that Google made your app better for me as a user. Congrats Google indeed.

> Because Schönbohm is also the founder of Cyber-Sicherheitsrat Deutschland e.V.

This would make sense as an answer, if Schönbohm had a connection with Protelion (other than indirectly through CSRD e.V.). Are you asserting that that is the case?

Otherwise, the links in my mind at the moment are:

  KGB — Infotecs — Protelion ... CSRD e.V. — Schönbohm — BSI

where the link "..." is not obviously suspicious (although I'm not saying evidence couldn't be adduced to make it suspicious).

I don't really understand the allegation put forward in the programme. I see that Protelion is suspect but why would this reflect on Cyber-Sicherheitsrat Deutschland e.V.?

But the quote does not address the question of whether the government felt that the sovereign were threatening to block legislation, if it were not modified in accordance with the Royal Family's wishes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyqnu6ywhR4).

And a phone number, and a bank account/CC number (so that you won't get escalatingly locked out of stuff because your direct debits fail. Don't ever use N26, kids.)