Incel generally means the mindset rather than the literal definition. Getting laid doesn’t stop someone being an incel, and failure to get laid doesn’t make someone into one. It’s all the misogyny, entitlement and self-loathing that makes someone an incel.

One of the stills from one of the videos that the BBC showed identifying it as a Tomahawk showed it at a very un-cruise-missile way up, so it could just have malfunctioned during terminal guidance or been clipped but not destroyed by air defence, and then hit the wrong target. It could also just have been a governmenty-looking building close enough to an intended target that whoever was checking it didn’t notice it wasn’t the target. It’s a lot easier to get everything right when the whole mission is to hit one person with one missile when everyone’s got enough time to do their job perfectly and everything’s been rehearsed than when there are thousands of targets and people are doing things in a rush, especially if orders are coming from people who don’t care about international law.

There’s nothing inherent to small components to suggest that you have to review them. If they’re small, it’s easier to tell yourself that the LLM probably got them right and you’re justified in not checking.

Using an LLM to write tests and small components is still vibe coding.

If we go by George W Bush the French have no word for entrepreneur rules, then there’s no Dutch word for apartheid anymore since it was taken for English.

Cultural appropriation is something like McDonald’s advertising a new Indian burger and it’s just a beefburger with some chillies in it, i.e. someone’s attempting to gain from a bastardised caracature of the culture that wouldn’t be something someone from that culture would participate in. Right wing pundits intentionally misrepresented it as things like eating a traditional dish from another culture to make it sound stupid so people would dismiss it, and then people who’d only heard the misrepresentation but wanted to do the right thing or at least appear to be doing the right thing started acting like it was immoral to participate in any culture you weren’t born into.

If all the profiles are garbage, then:

• it would be bad UX to start using one of the garbage profiles and declare that the monitor’s now working.
• it would be better UX to notice all the profiles have nonsensical values, fall back to a basic one all monitors typically support, and display an error message.

How do you propose you sanity check numbers beyond checking whether or not they’re within a sane range, i.e. a hardcoded limit? It’s not like you can trust a monitor that’s potentially feeding you bad values to limit the number of bad values it gives you.

Either you’d be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you’d be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.

If there are potentially buggy or broken monitors that sometimes report the wrong value, then a bounds check that enforces sane values makes sense. If the range of sane values changes decades later, then you’ll have to update things, but you’ll likely need to update other things on that timescale anyway, e.g. to support newer display connectors that support the new limits.

Premature optimisation often makes things slower rather than faster. E.g. if something’s written to have the theoretical optimal Big O complexity class, that might only break even around a million elements, and be significantly slower for a hundred elements where everything fits in L1 and the simplest implemention possible is fine. If you don’t know the kind of situations the implementation will be used in yet, you can’t know whether the optimisation is really an optimisation. If it’s only used a few times on a few elements, then it doesn’t matter either way, but if it’s used loads but only ever on a small dataset, it can make things much worse.

Also, it’s common that the things that end up being slow in software are things the developer didn’t expect to be slow (otherwise they’d have been careful to avoid them). Premature optimisation will only ever affect the things a developer expects to be slow.

Reform aren’t devoid of ties to Russia, so where the UK’s national security is at odds with Putin’s interests, it won’t be a priority. Russian gas will never be sold to the UK again if the UK stops buying gas.

Except for on submarines, where there isn’t a deck, deck-launched torpedoes have been normal for about as long as torpedoes have been used. It’s much more of a nuisance to do things underwater than above the surface, so unless you’ve got a good reason, like being a submarine, generally we don’t.

It’s got an option called Precise Wall that’s supposed to improve dimensional accuracy that at least seems to work in my experience (although I’ve not compared it to the results from other slicers).

The right flowrate for dimensional accuracy is likely not the right flowrate to end up with solid parts where internal lines are properly smushed together. The sides of a 3D printed object aren’t flat, so if you adjust the flow rate so that the bits that stick out the most are exactly where you asked the slicer to put the edges of the wall, you end up with your internal lines just barely touching each other instead of properly bonded. You want to tune your flow rate to get solid parts when you ask for them, set the line width a little wider than your nozzle to give space for material to flow outwards (which happens whether or not you want it to, but things work better if you tell the slicer it’s going to happen), and then when you’ve got a part that really needs the dimensional accuracy to be right, maybe temporarily use Orca Slicer instead to get its precise wall feature.

Everyone starts off without references, and there’s already less of a pipeline from user to helpful contributor to fellow maintainer than most projects want without having to add more chokepoints. There isn’t a solution without downsides while there are people using LLMs.

They stock things they make more profit on. If the margins on sugar water are much higher, then they don’t need to sell as much to make it worth stocking it instead of juice. If the margins are higher because consumers are unaware they’re being sold a cheaper-to-manufacture product for the same price because the packaging is deceptive to anyone who hasn’t been told they have to look or is in too much of a rush to have time to look, then shops end up full of sugar water that few consumers actually want.

Pre-mixed 100% juice drinks are readily available (depending on where you live). You don’t have to buy several juices and mix them yourself if you’re thirsty when walking past a shop as long as the shop stocks them.

Or perhaps we shouldn’t create a society where buying juice requires having and using a skill.

You can cut strong juice with other juice instead of with water and HFCS. Mixing passion fruit and orange juice at a level where it still mostly tastes of passion fruit makes something nice and not so expensive that it has to be sold at a different price to other orange juice.