Yeah, I don't understand this one. Going after piracy and/or piracy adjacent projects is one thing... this just seems petty.

You've captured what I was getting at better than I did. Thanks!

I've long held that the use of biometrics to replace passwords is a mistake. The classic "username" and "password" combo provides two pieces of information in order to verify identify: who you are, and something you know. A thumbprint, or an iris scan, more accurately represents who you are than something you know; so using those to replace your username would make sense... but using them to replace your password seems like a bad idea.

"Issued the final order" means submitted the order to the courts for approval. This is somewhat typical, as many orders are prepared by the lawyers and simply reviewed / signed by the courts; this saves the courts (the public) time and money. It was not "finalized" until the judge actually signed off on it.

From the ensuing order from the application to set aside the divorce order:

"The solicitors have explained that the member of staff involved had intended to apply for a final order of divorce for another client, in a different divorce case, but inadvertently opened the electronic case file in ‘Williams v Williams’ and proceeded to apply for a final order in that case."

I've had a similar thought in the past, primarily as a result of witnessing the very partisan bickering we're discussing right now... but the problem wouldn't be solved by banning parties.

Suppose we elected 338 independents to Parliament, each one of them selected through a good election based not on partisanship but on reasonable platforms in an effort to actually represent the wishes of the constituents. So far so good. However, the next bit is the problem. Even if everyone gets to Parliament with the intention of working together, people are going to have different priorities. Some compromise is fine, but some priorities are going to be diametrically opposed. The natural course of things is that the MPs will gravitate towards the other MPs who share similar values, or at least are close enough that a compromise can be reached for mutual gain.

Now, instead of having clearly delineated parties, we've just pushed the problem underground. The "parties" will form and exist off the radar, unofficially recognized and unannounced to the public. You might as well call them "shadow parties". Even if you ban running in an election as a "slate" officially, unofficially people in the know will know who's with whom, but it'll be HARDER, not easier, for the electorate to know what they're voting for.

I would call the above speculation an "educated guess" based on my own personal experience in Canadian politics, so you're free to simply dismiss it as incorrect. Though I do encourage your own thought experiments as to how such a party-less Parliament would actually behave.

I'll take your word for it, but I find it truly hard to believe that people are allowed to drive around uninsured for a mere $500. From a societal perspective, the real harm is going to be to the person the uninsured person hits - who will win a lawsuit in court for loss of future wages due to a permanent disability and then be unable to collect more than a pittance because the uninsured person is immediately bankrupt. It's one thing if you want to self-insure and you've got a million bucks in the bank set aside for a rainy day, but I have a hunch that's not the demographic who's going in for this scheme.

If by CA you mean Canada (I guess you probably meant California, but here's some words anyways), it varies by province, but where I live, what matters isn't actually the dollar value of the salary, but if you are considered a "manager" (and not just that it's in your title, you need to be in a position to, broadly speaking, hire / fire / make decisions on your own authority for the company, etc.) If you're "salaried" but not a manager, you're still entitled to OT. (disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer).

From the article:

This is what I was referring to when I was talking about novel sounds, precisely ones that do not fit into the notes found on a western piano.

Interesting study, which speaks mostly in the context of preferences which are obviously subjective, and maybe less obviously relative to the times. I can't help but wonder (speculate) if the preference for slight imperfections (if they can be called that) that the study noted might be a result of what is considered standard for our times. Perfect pitch isn't impressive like it may have been when the western classical instruments were first being developed; personally I crave novelty in the music I listen to, both in composition and in sound, so it's not surprising to me that people don't remain enamored with the same sounds for hundreds of years.

I'm a firm believer of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Add to this the simple statistical fact that half the population is at or below the 50th percentile of intelligence, and you realize how very easily something like this can happen. And please don't try to claim something like "no C level executive responsible for millions of dollars of investments could possibly be below the 50th percentile," that's just being naïve.

Is the use of ChatGPT ticking up, or is the number of people who have given it a try ticking up? It's not the same thing. From what I can tell this survey only looked at the number of people who have tried it, but if none of them returned to it or actually found a meaningful way to work it into their daily/weekly/monthly workflow, it seems disingenuous to declare usage is on the rise.

*shrugs* It's almost as if there's no way to pay for it even with the most outrageous plans of mice and men.