I just wouldnâ(TM)t change the clocks to accomplish this. That seems like a solution designed for a role when timepieces were rarer and less precise anyway. Iâ(TM)d just say âoesunâ(TM)s getting up later, now school bumps an hour laterâ as makes sense locally, or whatever is appropriate, without adjusting the actual clocks and then expecting some things to counterscale and most things to not. Mid-day doesnâ(TM)t have to be 12:00 PM everywhere and frankly it mostly isnâ(TM)t that close in most places at most times already.

Most time zones are defined much wider than 1 hour of sun travel anyway so whether daylight or standard time is âoebetterâ for you often depends how easy or west you are in an arbitrary somewhat-political timezone rather than the natural factors of how far you are from the equator, the local terrain (eg. do mountains block the sunrise or sunset or is it flat), etc.

I reject the assertion that valuing work implies you work harder or longer hours, and that working âoeharderâ is any easier to measure than directly measuring value for anything beyond physical endurance work.

The different definitions of value are exactly why you have a control group. Youâ(TM)d need that even with measuring hours, since how many hours is long hours can also be subjective.

Providing a novel definition, especially one contrary to its etymology, in a new context is literally redefinition

The conversation has moved on but since I happened to catch your reply, here's a screenshot that proves it works how I say:

https://imgur.com/a/z2Z8uws

I can't easily show you where my mouse is to demonstrate that the click targets match the visuals I'm providing or that Chrome is really maximized there since I cropped out the top-right window controls, but...it works the way I say. I've got multiple Windows machines and how I describe it is how it works. My best faith interpretation is maybe you have an unusual configuration, perhaps pushed on you by the same organization that is mandating your password manager. I have a bunch of these machines and they all work the same even without a profile, so I have a hard time believing we're subjects of different A/B tests.

I'm still not sure which you mean is the "right" way because what you said doesn't align to my observations, and it's difficult to know whether you prefer the browser you say or the behaviour you say, but my observation is that Edge behaves the way you say Chrome does, and Chrome behaves the way you say Edge does (and Firefox behaves the you say Firefox does, but not like the browser you say Firefox behaves like).

On another thread you claim you're getting the same behaviour on "quarter maximized" and I'm also definitely not seeing that, I only see tabs going to the top on Edge in maximized, not when Chrome is maximized and not when either Chrome or Edge are "quarter maximized".

I would bet a lot that all three browsers did what they did intentionally, making an intentional call as to which is the most important intentional behaviour and which is the acceptable accidental behaviour, and that all three browsers have people within their respective companies that strongly think their team made the wrong call; I don't think it's incompetent failure to copy or anything like that. I'm team "I'd rather drag the window absently than a tab".

I'm a little confused in that you seem to be saying the opposite of what's true: on my Windows machine, fully updated, Edge and Firefox tabs go to the very top (firefox visually doesn't look like it but from a click perspective they do), while Chrome does not. If you intend to drag a window, then that's easier on Chrome and harder on Firefox and Edge where you might accidentally drag a tab. If you intend to drag a tab, then that's easier on Edge and Firefox and harder on CHrome where you might accidentally move the browser window.

This was not my experience. I went to a place near Seattle several times (which is now closed). I did preset the credit card into my Amazon account. Then you enter the store, and you do have to scan something to enter the building, and then that's it. You walk in, grab your stuff, and you leave out the exit door.

In particular, there was no shopping cart, nothing pointing out sales, no scanning.

This was available during the early stages of the pandemic (when nobody was even fully sure what to do) and that was wonderful because I basically didn't have to touch anything other than the literal items I was taking home. It was so much quicker because there was no scan phase, no checkout phase, etc.. I was quite disappointed when it closed. It really was a much better experience than the self-scan-as-you-go checkout experience you described, or classic checkout, or self-checkout. That said, the whole store was simply further away than a much larger grocery store, so the convenience was outweighed by longer travel time unless I was in the area anyway. But if it were equidistant I'd have always chosen that store.

There were some things they told you. I remember I'm not supposed to pick something up, hand it to somebody else, and let that other person put it back on the shelf, because it'll confuse the software. If you put something back (eg. after reading nutritional ingredients or whatever) it should be the same person who pulled it off the shelf.

What you experienced really just sounds like what I experienced at many other grocery stores like Safeway for years that is not Just Walk Out.

What are you talking about? Badmouthing Musk on slashdot is not the same thing as trying to make Neuralink fail. Even if Musk were an angel, itâ(TM)s just a whole different thing.

It's referencing having an NPU in addition to the usual CPU/GPU. This isn't Microsoft-specific terminology, it's coined by Intel: https://www.intel.com/content/..., https://www.tomsguide.com/comp...

IMO I've found the AI is much better at searching for certain domains of things.

Basically, I still find Google consistently better than Bing for search, but when I can't find something immediately, Bing Chat often does. Usually when I'm trying to describe something I only half-remember, vs. something where I know precision search terms. Eg. the other day I was trying to remember a point and click adventure game that came out sometime in the last decade that starts with a context between elves or fairies (couldn't remember which). I fed that to the AI and it suggested a bunch but the first suggestion was "A Tale of Two Kingdoms" which is exactly correct. Likewise, I was looking for an API that had several properties, and I was blanking on the formal name of it. So I described it to the AI and it pointed it out. Also, my mom was trying to get me to explain eSIM to her before she travelled internationally -- she couldn't understand the documentation she got from searching but when I asked her to try the AI she was able to figure out everything else successfully.

But the best one I had was that my family has a tradition that we could not trace, with a name which we were told was German but was pronounced exclusively by non-German speakers. Google never helped with this. Speaking with actual German speakers never helped with this (we were probably pronouncing it far too wrong). But Bing was able to identify it as related to Eierdütschen. A word which still doesn't really give English-language results.

Basically, the AI is much better at interpreting vague ideas / half-remembered things / "I've got it on the tip of my tongue" searches, and for interactive explanations to scale the level of detail to the audience / refine mistaken queries.

I still haven't quite figured out where I land on using this. I still use Google as my go-to first form of searching. I only go to Bing Chat if I either don't get results from Google, or I can't figure out a way to formulate a Google query, in part because I get worred about the 30 chat per day limit even though I have never come close to that limit and I could almost certainly game that limit if I had to. Example of the latter being something like "write some javascript to read the contents of [txt file] as a newline-delimited list of names and randomly pair them off" as a basis for further editing. Closest thing I'd do with that on Google is to search within StackOverflow examples of people reading txt files in javascript, and shuffling using javascript, and combining them myself.

You don't get to come back a year (or a century) later and say, "Hey, I just found out what that painting is actually worth. Give it back."

Actually... Why not? You said yourself you're in the wrong and you certainly acted in bad faith, so why shouldn't your victim have their demand to annul the deal enforced?

As opposed to people with nativist and inward looking views, companies like Apple HAVE to work overseas, and if you keep following the US govt kool-aid, then you will only be able to do business with Western Europe and other allies.

Try to understand that a big part of the world actually sees the US as the big bad empire that they portray China to be and it makes sense that they ask Stewart to tone it down a bit.

It's not that China is a big bad empire, it's that Xi is an emperor who's unable to placate his people with promises of a better tomorrow due to China's economy having caught up enough that the rubber band has gone slack and dictatorships being inherently incompatible with the rule of law which a strong economy requires, so his only hope for survival is to placate them with promises of glory which makes a confrontation with China and West pretty much inevitable, and Xi knows that. It's the same deal as with Russia, US is simply being wiser than EU was.

Basically, what's business to Apple is a weapon to China, and China is a fundamentally hostile nation to anyone who doesn't think Xi would make a great world leader, which he wouldn't judging by everything I know about life in China and also because he's a genocidal tyrant. That's not "nativist" or "inward looking", that's simply realism.

I recently saw a very insightful interview where dictatorships are defined by things you cannot criticize, like the CCP in China, Kim Jong-un in Korea, etc. In the US the thing that will absolutely get you canceled will be talking about the Israeli lobby and the influence such a small group holds over US culture in general.

Seriously? You're equating getting canceled with getting disappeared?

Note that such a system would also prevent Slashdot from leaning left and censoring conservatives, which they're doing now by institution an idiotic "karma". Slashdot karma is all about politics. And Slashdot is left leaning. One could express that cutely as "CowboyNeal is an imbecile".

But you're not being censored. Your comment is right here, readable for all who care to engage with users with bad reputation. That you have managed to earn a bad reputation through your own actions does not reflect badly on Slashdot or CowboyNeal, it reflects badly on you. It is the consequence of your actions, in other words, your karma.

That most people ignore you doesn't mean you're being censored, it just means that they think you and your opinions are not worth listening to. That your response to this is that the government should force them to pay attention just serves to demonstrate that their judgement is completely right. It's not a political judgement, it's a judgement about you as a person.

Given your vitriol here, I think you know that too, and judging by the fact that you keep posting on Slashdot despite hating the place I doubt you're more welcome elsewhere either. So perhaps you should reflect on the only common factor for a change, try to see your self from other people's eyes and maybe, just maybe accept that you might actually be the one who's in the wrong and needs to change? It's painful, but so is eternal bitterness, and there is no government big enough to make other people like you, so those are your options.

I'm 38 years old. I have used fewer than 8 cheques in my life (the free cheques I was given when I opened my account).

Also, I've never paid for an Interac etransfer in Canada. I double-checked and apparently there are bank feres for it from lots of banks, which surprised me. I've never seen that be friction. But okay, apparently that does happen.

Because it's way shorter. That's sort of like "why do you need to read the dust-jacket summary of the book when you could just read the book".

I feel like people are forgetting that the Internet is already full of crazy bullshit and if you want to verify the answer you have to follow citations. And most people don't most of the time but it's useful that they're there for those times when it's very important.

This debate reminds me of the "why would anybody ever use wikipedia when anybody can edit it" argument. And part of the answer to that was always: it's an encyclopedia, you were never supposed to treat an encyclopedia as a primary source even when they were made of paper. You were always supposed to follow the citations for anything serious, but you could often be satisfied with "good enough".

I remember being disappointed after having read the tvtropes for the short story "Herbig-Haro", sequel to the "Road Not Taken". It seems accurate now, but for years the TVTropes page had a "hallucination" of a story synopsis that was frankly much better than the real story. Here's a forum of another poster who had the same experience I did: https://forums.spacebattles.co....

Now, I don't think anybody was taking tvtropes seriously as a scholarly source at any point. It's just an example that the Internet is full of bullshit. I'm sure everybody can cite profound scientific bullshit and religious bullshit and political bullshit, including things that are 100% inarguably objectively untrue.

For what it's worth, I asked Bing AI and it gave me an answer of "a paradox", proceeding from "this statement is false". This is simultaneously the most stereotypical AI answer I could possibly get, and something I can imagine a human actually saying, given the question was a bit ambiguous.

Bard gave a list of 3 space facts and also that "consciousness exists", which is also not a bad answer but sort of ironic in a different way from Bing's answer.