You know that's not true. By your definition, Windows natively supports every network card that requires a driver to work, natively supports every printer or scanner that requires a download before it works, and natively supports all the GPUs that haven't been released yet.

Native support for a thing means in-box support.

Just... never mind me. Mobile posted twice before I was done. I give up.

Helping and reforming someone so they stop doing drugs feels... okay

Helping someone so they stop doing drugs feels... okay. Punishing and imprisoninf

ChatGPT, you have a typo there. That should read:

"A worker who handles a radioactive rod without protection will die in days regardless of any chiropractic treatments."

Haha, only serious.

At it's root, it's a fundamentally stupid design choice. The Start Menu, Explorer, Settings and a few other critical parts of the OS have been written so they're basically Microsoft Store apps. They're modular, and they're therefore much more susceptible to being damaged.

The number of times I've had a customer who's got a Start Menu that just doesn't open, or Settings won't open, or similar behavior should be zero, but isn't. These high-visibility, high-criticality parts of the OS should be rock solid but aren't.

I'm sure it's the same clowns that signed off on the decision that UI elements are allowed to move after a window starts drawing. It's moronic. I see what I'm looking for in a menu or something, and I start to click on it but poof... five more things get delay-added to the view and I click on the wrong thing because what I wanted moved. No. Not okay.

Finally, performance. Whoever signed off on the Start Menu not being utterly instant needs to be fired. It is almost always faster for me to press WinKey+R, type "cmd", hit Enter, type "notepad", and hit Enter than to get the Start Menu to find and display it. Note: I only add a command prompt in there so I can keep it open for launching other stuff. The Start Menu is BAD at being the place where you start. Too many useful things are hidden, and too much cluttered shovelware hides what users need.

The XAML side of things is only part of the problem. The shoddy programming, logic, and management who allow this are the others.

You are right.

That? Sure, amazing I guess though I'm unfamiliar with any of the tasks described there.

But as an MSP, the rising number of times an end-user includes "ChatGPT says" in their ticket and the recommendations are a} wrong, b} out-of-date, c} incomplete or d} misleading approaches 100%. Some of it is a customer not expressing themselves well, granted. But most of it is that the correct answer is complicated, has a consequences, and bears considerate thoughtful review and research.

"Ask your administrator to disable important-security-setting" and "ask you administrator to enable deprecated-feature" or "get your admin to go into vCenter" when operating a KVM environment is the kind of stuff we get. That and "here's a massive pile of Python code that doesn't work... fix it... I've already done the hard part for you."

I'm glad something about LLMs helps you. But we have yet to find one AI-enhanced tool that saves us time and effort.

I don't think I'd mind if important sites went:

Requirements are a minimum of ten characters containing two of blah blah categories of characters, AND IT CAN'T BE STUPID.

Then checked against a list of the top couple thousand well-known passwords and just said "no".

But maybe there's a good reason to not do that. Dunno. Designing security isn't my job.

As it happens, I live near a major stopover in Ontario and almost 50 years ago I had a school field-trip to the provincial park they use. It was wild. I get it, we'd feel completely different if they weren't pretty, but... they are. It's shaming to think about what's happened to this very visible species and realize we've done it to countless others who don't happen to have massively visible orange and black wings.

I do understand environmentalism pushback. I mean... if we only occupied 1% of the world's surface and only made extinct one species, that'd be one thing. If we occupy 100% of the world's surface and kill everything that isn't food, that's obviously insanely unacceptable. So... where in the middle is "okay"? How many humans costing how many non-human species is where it's sort-of okay? Different people have different answers. For some we've gone too far (I buy into this), and for others we're far from over the line. Shrug. And sigh.

You're right. Scientists are ill-equipped to figure out that ~400 specific butterflies died out of 200,000 is due to a transmitter and are instead left fabricating a cause. But an Internet anonymous coward is up to the task. Sure.

Did you read what you quoted? Those are the worst customers.

The hotel needs to book X rooms at $Y to break even on a given day. They know their average room-fill rate, and they build their asking price based on that, with the target profit on top, getting $Z. A customer books a room in advance, and agrees to pay $Z.

All is well so far.

Now, as the day approaches, the hotel sees that they are not booking to capacity. So they offer the remaining rooms at below $Z and possibly even below $Y because empty rooms bring zero revenue.

You can view that the long-booked customer is getting a poorer deal than the last-minute booker. Okay. Too bad. You agreed to the terms you agreed to. And you got the guarantee that your room is held, where someone who waits until closer to the date may not get a room. It's completley fair.

The problem comes in when a customer uses a third-party booking company that cancels and rebooks, artificially replacing foundational income that was used to determine when discounts could be issued, replacing a $Z consumer with something less. That act undermines the hotel's profitability and stability.

I don't know why booking anywhere but a hotel is even a thing. Makes no sense to me whatsoever for a third party site to generate a discount. And playing scummy games that erode the predictability necessary to operate something like a hotel or restaurant... also not cool. I don't see how the hotel's actions are in the wrong.

I find it illuminating that your demands are simply the best quality and the lowest price. Easy-peasy, right? You're part of the problem.

Yes, if. That said, it's entirely possible to do this right. Head office bags the money in front of the driver, who scans a barcode indicating he's agreeing to the amount in the now-sealed bag. Recipient scans the barcode confirming the package is sealed when handed to them. Plus the company only assigns drivers who have established they are capable. It's a stupid service and the company involved is stupid so you're probably right, but it doesn't have to be that way.

First of all, lying is a strong word. You can't know there was any intention behind the error.
But if the judge had thrown out your case, then a person who committed an act that was against the law would have gone free. Which isn't a good thing, regardless of what was or wasn't legalized after the fact and regardless of how you and I feel about that act. (For the record I couldn't possibly care less about pot possession or use.)

Why didn't he? Presumably because clerical mistakes aren't sufficient cause for mistrial.

It doesn't matter if AI fabrications represent or misrepresent the spirit of the law. Case law citations need to reflect the actuality of prior case findings so the judge can rule based on those previous rulings. Giving a judge fake material that encourages them to rule the way legislators intend is fraudulent regardless of a convenient outcome.

Look, if you don't see a difference between "your honor, here is the video evidence of the accused stealing cars that night... five in total... wait, what... three... sorry, here's the video evidence of the accused stealing three in total" and "your honor, in the 1984 case of Santa Clause v The President of Mars, the judge found that wearing green is grounds for conviction... wait... you don't believe that's a real case? I told ChatGPT to not make shit up. Huh." then we don't have anywhere to go. While I am sympathetic to the specific cause for your court visit, I just don't see it remotely the same as knowingly using a bullshit bot.

In one case, lawyers knowingly used a product famous for fabricating fundental case law. Said product should not be used. In yours, a human transcribed a number incorrectly. They are not the same. The error in your case us one of degree... a question of how severe your punishment should be. The cases where fake precedents are presented as factual guide a judge to determine legal basis for guilt or innocence. You could - and did - correct the error in your case because it was possible for you to recognize the error. No accused is going to recognize fabricated case law. It's the difference between a name mixup getting you sent to the wrong seat on an airplane versus being wrongfully detained in Gitmo because they think you're on a no-fly list because someone knowingly looked it up on a fake web site instead of the official source.

First, Lego sets were never "generic". They were exactly what they were, be it a truck, a house, a castle, a space ship, or a dog.

Second, today you build anything and everything. There appears to be one new/unique part in this set and it's a very useful one. Take a look at Rebrickable.com and you'll see that there's a truly massive trove of other things people are making out of today's Lego sets. There was a brief period around the 1990s where there were a high number of elements that could only be used for what they were. Bows of boats, noses of airplanes... whatever. But for a very long time that mistake was remedied and things tend to be brick-built now, out of smaller, more useful elements.

Yes, there is a newish adult collectable trend where people can buy things like this for display purposes but I absolutely guarantee tonnes of these sets are going to be ripped apart and incorporated into other things, and in many cases the parts sold on the secondary market to become something completely different. I have personally bought tens of thousands of elements that are now on display at home and in my company office as completely different creations. I'm in my 50s and I've got multiple projects on the go, and I'm frequently dabbling in Stud.IO, designing stuff digitally.

The nostalgia you're kind of yearning for is absolutely, positively alive and well, rest assured.

As for price, well, yeah. But this is a 3,600 element set that is licensed. Parts on the secondary market go for between $.10 and $.15 Canadian and this comes out on the upper end of that, but again, it's a licensed product so it's not just LEGO who gets a slice of the pie here. It's still not abnormal. It's just a high quantity of parts. The per-part value is high but not abnormal.