Mee too! Next week, I'll replace them with Windows Servers.

You joke, but it's already this way! The prompt on one side would be something like: "write news article about ice carving festival, completed on 02.03.2026. Attached is the list of finalists, their scores and what they carved. The mayor and the sheriff attended. One man choked on their hot-dog in the evening, was rescued by first responders that were stationed on-site". The AI will add fluff to expand this into a two-page article. Then on the reader's side another AI will be used to take the fluff back out and give you the summary: "John Doe won the yesterday's ice carving competition by carving a life-size mermaid. Do you want more details?".

I tried to use AI to extend my parallel C++ t-SNE algorithm to have barnes-hut approximation to have more linear scaling when the number of data points is large. The code had bugs and didnâ€(TM)t always give correct results => AI is waste of time.

Plumbing is the new coding.

Uhh.... yes?

Yes, it also used to be that you could opt out from appearing in one.

Indeed! Thanks!

Score:5, Informative? Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I develop...

HELP!

I'm develop open source (too) but hospital wants to kill me! Nurses talk to me about deadly treatments even when I'm healthy.

Does somebody want to help me?

visor75436@proton.me

homeopathy to mental health treatment!

Others gave also valid answers, but here is one more: the experiments that are designed for testing a certain model or measure a certain property are, especially the beginning, as simple as possible (and as complicated as necessary) in order to eliminate as many error sources as possible. Also ther factors, such as duration, are also taken into account. In this case flyid dynamics was developed using water and air, because these were the relevant materials for our applications, are easily accessible, cheap etc. But then you end up with a physical theory that is *expected * to be valid for many different materials (based on the assumptions made), but has only been actually validated on only a handful of them. As the theory or model gets tested on more systems the boundaries of the feasibility of the experiment are stretched. Unless an experiment invalidates your theory, there is no reason to believe that the theory will not be valid for even more extreme cases, but you don't really *know* that. So here we are, after 100 years, waiting for that drop to fall. We are not exactly biting our nails in fear that laminar viscous flow theory will be invalidated (I would suppose the first few droplets took care of that) but why not gather more data while there is still pitch in the funnel?

Nope. I got something similar some time ago. It would not budge. I had to put it aside for a few hours for the bttery to die.

FSF must tell Microsoft that Windows should be free like Linux.

From the data in the report that the GP posted it does not seem that there is a negative effect of DRLs. They are either effective or irrelevant. Which makes sense: DRLs in sunlight do not blind you, they are just barely noticeable.