The irony is that half of the insipid comments are being made by people with 5 digit UIDs.

Nobody has to trust CVEs -- that's the point. They are verifiable and typically there are proofs of concept which are easily testable. People ignore them at their own peril. (Hint, nobody in security ignores CVEs -- on the contrary, they mine them for exploits).

Per fortnight.

I think it's a moot point, in that it doesn't matter what we call it, but that said, you're still citing a suicidal individual who isn't thinking clearly. So... perhaps not the most reliable narrator.

Self/auto-leveling headlights are far from a panacea. There is the limited range of motion issue, but more importantly, roads are not flat. If you're cresting a hill at the same time as another driver in the opposite direction, your lights are going to shine in the oncoming driver's eyes, period.

More advanced (so-called "matrix" LED) headlights, in conjunction with cameras, can instead detect oncoming vehicles and create local dimming in that direction. There's room for improvement in the execution, but the theory is sound, and improvements can be delivered in OTA updates rather than replacing the hardware. Which is good, because the hardware is not cheap.

And the likeliest explanation is things connected with the GDPR "right to be forgotten":

https://mashable.com/article/c...

This formula makes a lot of assumptions based on our own evolution, but does so selectively. For example, the fact that we exist means the odds of intelligent life evolving are 100%, but this formula ignores that reality while including preconditions for intelligent life drawn from our own history, such as the idea that it requires billions of years to arise. In reality, we don't know whether our timeline is typical any more than we know the statistical significance of our own existence. We only have a sample size of one, and that's not really enough to draw any meaningful conclusions beyond the fact that life is possible.

I'm reminded of the recent discovery that the conditions on Uranus were atypical when Voyager made its flyby (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/science/uranus-voyager-2-flyby.html), yet we had been assuming for decades that they were normal. That's the problem with small sample sizes.

I will caveat this by adding that having observed zero signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the observable universe lends support to the idea that the odds of intelligent life arising in any given star system are vanishingly small. Even on our own planet, all available evidence suggests that it has only happened once. However, if there is indeed randomness to the existence of life, then we would also expect clustering, so there may be galaxies and even planets with multiple forms of intelligent life, even if our own galaxy turns out to be relatively barren.

Studies like this are of limited utility, as there is often a disconnect between what people say and what they actually do.

Moreover, party allegiances are likely to override any negative inferences, and cause people to rationalize their choice despite their stated preferences or values.

Tell that to the starving North Koreans.

Not to worry, soon his estate will license his voice for AI, and literally everything will be narrated by James Earl Jones.

"Wow, you're so confident and funny. Were you always like this?"

"Nah, I've just played a lot of D&D."

To be fair, some professors grade accurately but use measures that are incredibly poor. "Well, you should have had a background in early 1500s Dutch law to even be in this class as far as I'm concerned, so I don't know why you're complaining. I made it clear at the beginning of this Linear Algebra class that I wasn't going to teach to the test and that independent study was expected."

Some professors get off on that sort of thing though. It validates their feelings of superiority I suppose.

A comparison of grades over time is meaningless without context. What was the acceptance rate in 1950 compared to today? What are the selection criteria? Connections still go a long way, but I imagine they went much further in 1950 than they do today. The population of the US has more than doubled since the 1950s and more people are going to college instead of going into trades, but Harvard class sizes are about the same. It would frankly be surprising if GPAs *didn't* improve.

I'm not saying grade inflation isn't real -- I honestly don't know--- I'm just saying this article doesn't show any compelling evidence.

As far as grades being a metric for sorting a given class, if everyone can master the material and get 95% or better accuracy, then curving that to make the "worst" students fail is utter BS in my view. If you need a comparison for a given class, then add some digits to the end of the GPA. Class rankings are still a thing too.

Heh. If they had given senior officers the WiFi password, they probably wouldn't be in this mess. Never try to buck the hierarchy. Sure, it's an opsec risk (in the same way that having a cell phone turned on is a risk, and we know *everybody* stows their phones or uses airplane mode underway, right?), but everybody who cares, and certainly anyone with the resources to geolocate a satellite transmission, already knows where surface ships are all the time anyway. Surface ships are not stealthy. They tried that with littoral combat ships. They were too small to be useful and too expensive to be plentiful.

Anyway, in my day you just tunneled http over an smtp proxy like a normal person and ran your own STP between shops for LAN parties. I mean, sure, in theory, if you *really* wanted to get online in real-time-ish, if you had an incompetently managed NMCI infrastructure, you could maybe spoof the MAC address of the workstation of a senior officer who had unrestricted Inmarsat access. But we're talking strictly theory on that one. Pure conjecture boys.

It's not that hard to get protein from plants as long as you don't mind all the methane you'll be releasing afterwards. And of course there's the relentless drum beat from eccentric attention-seekers who are happy to point out that we can get all of our protein from crickets and silkworms. But yeah, I'll stick to pork and beef personally. As long as it wasn't processed by Boar's Head. (Though I suspect other brands are just as foul; it just hasn't bit them in the ass yet.)