I don't get the Google search hate. I've seen similar comments about search being bad, but that is not my experience at all.

For my Google Searches:
  ~ 70% of the time the thing I want is the first result
  ~ 15% it would be within the first 3 or 4 links. (Most of those it would because I was lazy to type the additional search words to aim it towards the secondary source I was aiming for).
  ~ 5% The thing was between 5 links down, or on the second page
  ~ 5% of the time I have to try a different combination of words to get it
  ~ 5% the information I want just isn't out there in the way I want it.

The rewording is the only issue I have trouble with, and that normally happens when I'm doing a search for a thing but a thing with the same name and is completely different and more popular than my thing.

Am I just lucky? Are people bad and crafting google searches? Are people just salty?

What are some recently searches that have failed?

What is Luna? It's the first sentence of the summary "Amazon Luna is one of the better cloud gaming options..."

Luna is Amazon's Cloud gaming platform, like Stadia, or the Razor thing, or what Microsoft and Playstation have.

Play games over the internet, instead of your computer being used to draw the polygons and do math and stuff, it just gets a "video" of the game play and relays the inputs.

I've used the Xbox one before and it works pretty good, even in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Laws are intentionally gray, that is why we have multiple levels of courts. It is impossible to think of every possible version and build that into the law.

But I do agree that it would be nice if laws were written more consistently, if you've spent time reading them it is very frustrating. Because formatting, word-choice, and/or for lists, etc. will all vary based on the author, when it was written, or where the law is. The same word might have completely different meanings depending on what section you're talking about.

Then again, when you get programmers thinking we can solve non-programming problems with programming you end up with things like Crypto and NFTs...

1) They have proof. He literally admitted to cheating multiple times.

2) Again, you didn't say what you would do. (for the third time?)

But obviously this is pointless. You seem to be under the impression that anything short of a taped video confession is not "evidence" and without "evidence" its a violation of some sort constitutional right for a business to say "your business is not wanted anymore".

1) They have as much proof that is obtainable. 25 of the 25 people that this software has identified has admitted to cheating. And remember he admitted to it, so he is a chess.com cheater, 100%.
2) You didn't answer my question, what is the solution? What they are doing is bad, so what is the better way?

I'm sorry is he being thrown in jail for life or something?

Again, absent of breaking in Hans' computer/home there is no way to say for absolutely sure that he cheated.

Since you are so keen on saying what they are doing is "bad" what should they do? Be forced to allow cheaters to play?

What are you talking about? People are convicted of serious crimes all over the world everyday based on circumstantial evidence.

Chess.com did an investigation, they found more then 100 times he cheated online. That's more than enough to ban him from their service.

What are you even advocating for? Are you saying they shouldn't ban him?

By your criteria no such evidence could exist unless they hacked his system and installed spyware, or broke into his house.

He's not going to jail or anything, it's a private business that says "here are reasons why this person is not allowed back". That is within their rights, it's also the ethical choice. Every person he beats he lowers their ranking, why should he be allowed to continue to take points from people when the preponderance of evidence says he is cheating.

If he continues to play in live events, and continues to win when the feeds are delayed, he could redeem himself.

1) You realize that the Chess.com is talking about online matches right? Not over the board games. Putting the moves into a chess program and doing the move the AI does is cheating.
2) You wouldn't need anything that complicated. Just a pattern (1-8) for row, column, or even piece type. The players are high level level enough to fill in the missing information.

Evidence so far:
1) Hans has gained the most points in the shortest amount of time than any other player in history, by a large margin
2) Has admitted to cheating in the past
3) Is being coached by a player who had his own cheating scandal back in the day
4) Behaves oddly during and after matches (doesn't appear to be focusing, has trouble articulating why he made certain moves, etc.)
5) Beats the #1 ranked player in the world, after that the tournament switches to a tape delay system and he doesn't get any more wins for the tournament.
6) Program specially designed to find cheaters says he cheats a lot
7) Magnus loses all of the time, it happens. This isn't boxing where #1 never loses. Normally he is gracious and congratulates and commends the person he lost to. He sees something up with Hans.

Sure several points alone wouldn't mean much, but there is a big tread.

While that is one take, as you know if you were to prescribe yoga, or meditation or whatever, a rather small percentage of your patients would actually do it long term. People are lazy, we want a simple pill to fix our problems, not something that takes effort.

Yeah, I thought it was already ruled that AI/animal generated art doesn't get copyright protections?

To me this seems like they are just trying to stem the tide of this AI generated works thing. Stock image sites will be useless in a couple of years. Why pay a stock image site when you can just go to one of the AI pages and type "Woman laughing while eating a salad."

FWIW, YMMV, etc.

But I have very bad spelling, I will often butcher a word so badly that normal spell check (non-enhanced Chrome, Word, etc.) will not even have it on the suggested word list.

These will normally show up with enhanced spell check.

Also, this feature is opt-in. Annoyingly so when every once and awhile it just turns off by itself.

My 1/50th USD, this is pretty silly. Normally the "show password" button does that by changing the input type from "password" to "text", so how would the browser makers known to no send that field?

So in theory in order for this to compromise someone's password:
1. User Opts in to the Enhanced Spell Check feature
2. User is on an unsecured network
3a. Other person on network goes for a MitM attack
or
3b. Bad actor at Google, MS does something
4. User checks the show password button
5. User types password into text box.

While it's not impossible, it is pretty unlikely.

I suppose they could/should update the feature so it wouldn't work on an unsecured network, that would be pretty reasonable.

"I though of the opposite. It's a great way to include only software engineers into the legislation. You need to learn git and command-line, this is out of reach for most regular citizen."

I think your point is undercut by the fact that there are links to the repository in the summary. Anyone can view documents in question and submit changes from their web browser or phone, you don't need any command lines or any specific knowledge of git.

Even if there is a technical reason why the hashes and wallets need to be the same length/format (which I don't think there is), it seems like a simple check to the chain "Hey, the Target Wallet does not currently exist in the blockchain, are you sure you wish to transfer?" would have prevented this.