Even the sketches from up north are presented sadly and a tad depressing

“oy, where’s my change?” “What change?” “For the money I gave you” “Besides payment for your 10 Dollar Lemonade special offer, I didn’t get any.” “But the sign says 1,50!” 1And a nice day to you, too" “Wait! I want my…” “I said: A nice day, Sir.”

But they don’t want you to switch to “the new cool stuff”. They want you to switch to “the ad serving platform”

We’d have to ask the Supreme Court if that’s the case and the way those “super neutral judges” act… maybe we wait until after the election for that one.

That’s what happens around any toilet in a 2km radius when Taco Bell has a major sale.

If Donald is immune, isn’t Kamala immune if she orders the FBI to throw him in the brig if (please, don’t fuck this up! VOTE!) she becomes president?

Same in German.

I mean… Have you tried?

Oh, you actually believed that story? Whoops. Sorry! It was actually me who ate your Cheetos and downed your Vodka.

It doesn’t. It will require you to reboot for every god-damned line of code that has changed.

Na, nothing. Did an update today. Nothing bad happened at al, Because why would it?

standing on the shoulders of giants.

See, Netflix? You don’t need to ramble on for two seasons to tell a fucking Story.

Many of the machines in question will have safe mode walled off for security reasons anyway.

I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…

Oh absolutely. It’s a barrier that doesn’t need to fall right away. But I stand by my opinion that it does have to fall.

If you’re ever having children, there will be many things that are “a bit gross”, be it in pregnancy, during childbirth, after childbirth or just diapers.

She’ll (rightfully) expect you to deal with all that, right? If pimples are where the “that’s gross, not gonna do it” line is, things will get rough.

I dislike that a) it’s considered binary, while the vast majority of people will not be even close to either extreme b) people put themselves into those extremes anyway, throw around the wildest (and mostly useless) definitions of what “being an introvert” is supposed to mean, more often than not dripping with victim mentality c) people use their supposed status akin to a neurodiversity d) people openly blaming others for not being allowed to be like they are because others dare to be like they are (“I have it so hard in life because I’m an introvert in a world full of extroverts”) e) people define large chunks of themselves around some label they largely defined themselves and want this label to be respected as if it was a real thing, an illness almost. f) people define large chunks of themselves around some label that is just meant to very loosely describe some aspect of a human being’s character, not the whole human

Let’s see how many “definitions” of supposed “introverts” or “extroverts” we get this time. It’s pop-psychology BS, people. Nothing more.

If life gives you lemons, have your scientists make lemon grenades out of them