AstridWipenaugh

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, "dick" wasn't a phallic word until more recently. Dick Tracy being a Private Dick wasn't funny. Nor was Nixon being known as Tricky Dick.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Yep, it's the classic "if you're not with us, you're against us" stance meant to threaten everyone into being complicit in your atrocities.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 days ago (3 children)

8:45 am, starts playing sex music playlist...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

When used in a metaphorical way like this, meaning code assistants are not literal weapons, it means to make a thing readily available to the masses. In context, my comment means that AI has streamlined the task of copy/pasting from stack overflow. You don't even have to search for what you're trying to do and the AI will use answers it's scraped from the site to fill out your code for you.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 5 days ago (4 children)

AI has simply weaponized copy/pasting stack overflow answers without reading them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

Ugh, Westminster, CO. Most showings in the Denver area are at least half full. But most theaters aren't showing it at all.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It's because of anti-discrimination laws. In some US states it can be illegal to hire someone for a position without posting it publicly. The concern is that if you're not posting the job publicly, it can be because you want to prevent certain people from applying.

When you do post it publicly, the company can demonstrate that they allowed anyone to apply, show records that they considered multiple people for the job, and then decided on the internal candidate as the best fit. No room for a discrimination lawsuit.

Source: I'm a hiring manager at a multi-billion dollar company and have actually learned a thing or two from annual compliance training over the years.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 5 days ago (5 children)

It makes for a more defensible argument. No sane person is going to argue that a 4 year old child is an enemy combatant. But a 20 year old male? It's easy to argue they could have been an enemy combatant and so maybe the numbers are inflated. Saying 1000 people can be interpreted as 999 enemies and only 1 civilian casualty. Saying 1000 women and children is usually interpreted as 1000 innocent lives lost.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago

The lord works in mysterious ways. We mortals cannot comprehend the depth of his glory.......... lol

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

This is the most excited I've been about a NIST standard in a good while

view more: next ›