Sphinx cats are also notorious for skin conditions, making them high maintenance in terms of vet visits, sadly.

But yeah, it would be cool to meet one in person.

But do you also sometimes leave out AI for steps the AI often does for you, like the conceptualisation or the implementation? Would it be possible for you to do these steps as efficiently as before the use of AI? Would you be able to spot the mistakes the AI makes in these steps, even months or years along those lines?

The main issue I have with AI being used in tasks is that it deprives you from using logic by applying it to real life scenarios, the thing we excel at. It would be better to use AI in the opposite direction you are currently use it as: develop methods to view the works critically. After all, if there is one thing a lot of people are bad at, it’s thorough critical thinking. We just suck at knowing of all edge cases and how we test for them.

Let the AI come up with unit tests, let it be the one that questions your work, in order to get a better perspective on it.

How do you play the missions? Generally I usually have almost enough for the next warbond after I maxed out the last one. I did hear that this struggle usually happens when people don’t look for POIs, which also results in resources always being rather slow to accumulate.

Overall, the game encourages to not beeline for primary objectives and rather plan out a route, especially for side objectives, as they can often be further away. It does help a lot that crashed resource drops (or what they are called) have a beacon that flashes higher the further away you are from them.

I mean, Theranos was less classic ethical nightmare as it was just a grift, separating suckers from their money. A possible more fitting example in the same vein would be Roger Wakefield’s “studies” on how the MMR vaccines cause autism., where actual children got harmed and spurred on the antivax movement.

Honestly, that’s news to me. Mind linking it? Might be interesting to read about it.

Funnily enough, the Stanford Prison experiment was pretty much just an act, with both parties encouraged to act the way they did. It’s been discredited nowadays.

A better analogy would be the Milgram experiment(s). Often repeated, breaking certain ethical rules (e.g. not telling your test subjects the whole truth about the experiment), with the result of some test subjects taking their own life from the sheer realisation of what they did, and yet the experiment still stands uncontested in its results.

I think it can be both. However they are no justification as to why one should buy and like a game they clearly won’t like for various reasons. Even more, trying to “fix” a game can alter the game’s impact on the player. There’s a reason why roguelikes/roguelites are so hard, and taking away the difficulty will lessen the experience. That’s why most people also, for example, won’t use cheating tools for their single player games apart from screwing around.

And that’s why you need to use aluminium instead.

Honestly, I think that this was a horrid read. It felt so unfocused, shallow and at times contradictory.

For example, at the top it talked about how software implementation has the highest adoption rate while code review/acceptance has the lowest, yet it never really talks about why that is apart from some shallow arguments (which I will come back later), or how to integrate AI more there.

And it never reached any depth, as any topic only gets grazed shortly before moving to the next, to the point where the pitfalls of overuse of AI (tech debt, security issues, etc.) are mentioned, twice, with no apparent acknowledgement of its former mention, and never mentioned how these issues get created nor show any examples.

And what I think is the funniest contradiction is that from the start, including the title, the article pushes for speed, yet near the end of the article, it discourages this thinking, saying that pushing dev teams for faster development will lead to corner cutting, and that for a better AI adoption one shouldn’t focus on development speed. Make up your damn mind before writing the article!

Funnily enough, Signal has circumvented the issue by marking their chat window as DRM content, making it invisible to Recall.

I’m not the one who you asked, but I’d still give some feedback of my own. Musk as a person is a difficult character. I would even go as far as calling him narcissistic.

• He got thrown out of PayPal for his incessant micromanagement and disruptions to the flow of the company
• he bought himself into Tesla to replace the CEO with himself
• he tends to depict himself as one of the greatest tech geniuses out there, yet often the plans he presents to the public are often poorly thought out and serve no other purpose than to show his “talents”
• when his proposal to build a tiny submarine for the Than Luang cave rescue was shot down and a British diver was chosen instead he resorted to call the diver a “pedo guy”
• his latest attempts in politics, especially concerning DOGE feel completely half baked and, again, how he presents himself in his position feels more like an ego trip than something more reasonable
• he publicly had talks with the controversial German political party “Alternative für Deutschland”, which are currently legally considered “assured right-wing extremists” and have had a history of having Nazis and Nazi sympathisers in their ranks

I generally can’t trust someone who seems to put himself first at everything to handle anything related to security when the role allows him to exploit it for his own gains. And I do not trust someone who supports political groups known for trying to oppress minorities to defend actual rights for free speech.

The question is whether this actually is E2EE, as it’s easy to fake by using a man in the middle attack and hard to prove. The only real way to prove it for sure is to run a third party security audit, like Signal does.

Taking down the old system doesn’t inspire confidence either, as this downtime could easily been used to interrupt old conversations in order to implement a way to decrypt the messages on the servers before passing it on to the actual recipient, as all keys would have to be re-issued.

I do like the hooks on Display Port, honestly. There were quite a few times where HDMI cables came loose while adjusting my screen due to the cable being tied together with other cables for organisational purposes. Putting it back in always a chore then.

I don’t think it is even much of a hassle when unplugging it from a machine, such as a PC. I do agree it’s a pain for monitors however, as the ports usually are in a more indented position.

Honestly, Telegramm always seemed to me a bit shifty since I learnt E2EE for chats was opt-in.

You are forgetting targeted attacks. A blind attack would pretty much not have much of an effect indeed, however if the attacker knows the machine, then it’s easy for the attackers to exploit these vulnerability if left “out in the open”, and cause havoc, possibly create a lot of damages or leech informations pumped into those machines via old Windows installations.