notabot

No, no, that’s Play-doh, a Plato is what Australians serve food on.

So you’re saying Superman put, or lured, the boy there in the first place, to give him plausible deniability for intentionally make nazi puree? I’m not sure he’d have waited for an excuse…

That’s nuts!

It’s actually really simple: did they message me first? 100% of the time they were bots.

The problem is, anyone you message is using the same test, thus deciding that you are a bot. The only logical way to handle this is to ensure you start all messages with “Greetings fellow human, I have perused the photographs of yourself that you put online. Not only are they very attractive – they’re interesting too. You did the right thing putting them up, and it was very brave to do so. I would lime to get to know you better…” That way no-one will be confused.

One tiny piece at a time. That what the foot knives are for.

Including the URL isn’t to act as a check on the contents of the QR code, but to act as an alternative for those who don’t want to scan it at all.

The problem is “cuteness” is very much in the eye of the beholder for things like this, and I’m with neatchee here, it’s not cute, and it makes it basically unshareable, and hence unusable in a lot of contexts. I appreciate the effort that’s gone into the project, but the name and publicity massively detract from that.

If there’s one layer of clothes then you’re correct, it O(1). On further thought deeper piles are not O(log N), but O(N). Once the number of items exceeds C it takes more than a single operation to retrieve an item from the bottom layer, and the number of operations is proportional to the number of layers, or N/C.

If you consider either picking an item up or moving it aside as a single operation, then retrieval from a single layer take 1 operation, and is O(1), but retrieval from the bottom of a two layer pile actually takes 3 operations (move the top item, retrieve the target item, replace the top item into the bottom layer, or you risk getting a deeper pile in one slot in the pathalogical case). Retrieval from the bottom of 3 layers takes 5 operations (move, move, take, replace, replace). in other words we have an O(1) process for taking the target item, and an O(N/C)=O(N) process for uncovering it in the first place, giving O(N) over all.

Your statement that “considering that the naximum amount of clothes is likely very small, it can be treated as O(1).” is true iff N<=C, which, I concede, is a likely scenario in any well managed laundry pile, hence comment about cache sizing.

Not if items are covered by other items. You’ve got a layer of fast L1 cache that is O(1), but exceed the limit of that layer by placing an item of clothing on top of it, and some elements are effectively “pushed down” to a higher latency tier, which is going to be closer to O(log N) as you have to move some percentage of the items out of the way to get to the target item. Cache eviction (doing the laundry) will reset this.

As always careful optimisation of the cache size, in relation to the expected distribution of items to be accessed, is key to maximising performance.

Thus is basically the same as the, now banned, flying wedge in rugby. The manouver aparently lead to twenty two fatalities, as well as inumerable injuries, in a single year.

To stop it sinking too far into the sand, right? … Right?

“make their knives easier”? Goodness! Reported for advocating violence!

Honestly, that’s one of the funniest autocarrot errors I’ve seen in a while, because it almost makes sense.

Set up a shell company. Set up a trust somewhere with no capital gain tax. Shift ownership of the shell to the trust. As the shell, come to an agreement in principal with the bank to buy it. Use this as colateral to raise a loan from the bank for the purchase amount. Transfer the debt to the bank as part of the merger with the shell company. The bank now basically owes itself to itself. Sell the combined company from the trust, thus avoiding capital gain tax.

Technically correct, the best sort of correct.

/futurama

They’re saying he has more than 9 girlfriends? I mean, yes, inventing the concept of place value, and the necesary zero, is impressive, but I don’t think he’ll be attracting that many ladies at once!

I find it genuinely bleak that we’ve got to a situation where someone would ask an LLM for something as fundamental as this. You could write a script that is considerably shorter, and vastly more reliable, than that prompt to get the same results. You could add the backup jobs to your monitoring system. You could actually test your backups. Regularly.

The cynic in me suspects it’s an attempt to sow division within pro-solar panel groups. Get them arguing amongst themselves over where to put them, rather than uniting to push for more panels.

nobody is anywhere downrange

Reflections can also blind, so make sure no-one, including you, are uprange, or siderange (to stretch a wordform to breaking point) either.

I don’t think a license is going to help you if you’re found walking around with a 7 watt laser hooked up to the relevant drive circuitry. They’re still going to presume you’re up to no good, and, when they find a camera with a burned sensor, they’re going to assume it was you. I guess the moral of this is: don’t get caught.

“You won’t take me alive copper!”