Pretty sure it's an autocomplete (like copilot or something)
They were typing
progress != "Hold"
And the ai autocomplete suggested
progress != "Hold onto your butts!"
Hence why the completion part is in grey (it's a suggestion)
Pretty sure it's an autocomplete (like copilot or something)
They were typing
progress != "Hold"
And the ai autocomplete suggested
progress != "Hold onto your butts!"
Hence why the completion part is in grey (it's a suggestion)
I think they mean that, because he was there to commit violence to someone else and just killed whoever happened to be in the house, it's not a good example of gendered violence against women since he probably would have killed a man who answered the door too (not walk away without killing anyone).
I'd say that it's actually a pretty good example though since, he was trying to find his ex-wife. Presumably to kill her. So an example of a violent man targeting a woman and then killing other women instead... It's something that's been in Australian news a lot lately with the recent protests following a depressingly large number of women killed by their partners so far this year.
It sounds like they controlled for that and did a bunch of different statistical models to break it down by different demographics and economics. That said, I'm finding it hard to find the original paper. It's not linked to in the article or any of the AP versions I found. Nature has a link to Google scholar but that comes up with nothing and it's not referenced in the researcher's publications on the Oxford site yet. Maybe it went to the press already but the actual article isn't out yet?
It does sound very broad though and difficult/impossible to draw any causation. Still interesting through as it does kinda show that any negative causative link that might exist between well-being and internet use is not strong enough to outweigh other positive factors that are correlated with it (even non-causative ones).
And an IBM Model M in the background‽
Looks more /usr/bucket/cat
But what volume would it be? Is it a small amount of glitter or a lot? What's the g/cm³ of glitter? What about tiny bits of uranium? I feel like all the little bits of air between the glitter particles would lower the density compared with just a solid block of uranium which would increase the volume but....
I feel like someone should put some numbers in this thread.
I was going to come up with something fun and clever to keep it going but the next line of the real song starts with "cream-coloured ponies" so I think we should probably just leave it here after all.
There are some of the internet's things that we don't need to enumerate.
I don't think that's universally true. Most parts of Australia I've been to have the same nuance of "females" often being used by assholes in a demeaning way and seen as somewhat dehumanising in some contexts (but not all).
Yeah, I like his argument about profiles maybe going to be able "e.g., to eliminate most range errors relatively soon."
Well maybe C++ could be considered safe "relatively soon" then but not right now.
Like he says: "Of the billions of lines of C++, few completely follow modern guidelines, and peoples’ notions of which aspects of safety are important differ."
That said, I don't really consider C++ to be inherently unsafe, there's a lot that goes into secure programming in any language. Just because you can't write to an array out of bounds in python doesn't mean your code is magically immune to vulnerabilities and just because you can in C, it doesn't mean your code is magically vulnerable to RCE from some buffer overflow.
I also don't really trust myself to write perfectly safe production C++ though. I feel like it's still too easy to feel like you know exactly what you're doing and accidentally miss something small (hence the many thousands of memory safety CVEs in professional software).
They ruined Linux!
Best is very subjective.
.world is a good general purpose instance for just about anything. I think it has the biggest population at the moment, so communities there are likely to get at least some engagement.
For "general discussion" it doesn't really matter. The instances are federated so you'll likely get general discussion in comments from lots of people from lots of instances anyway, wherever your community is based.
Some people get almost nationalistic about their chosen instances or have grudges against people from certain other instances. There's sometimes inter-instance politics with some servers defederating with others or threatening to for various reasons. It's kinda fun to watch in a popcorn drama kind of way. For the most part, the instance doesn't matter.
It's not that it's on the 172.16.0.0/12 range. That's totally normal and used for all kinds of stuff.
It's that it's in 172.16.42.0/24 which is the default dhcp settings for a wifi pineapple. It's the /24 mask given on the .42 that's a little suspicious because that's not a common range for anything else.
Being assigned one of those specific 253 hosts with that subnet mask would definitely make me think twice.