You told us it was AI. Saying it gives incorrect responses is redundant.

"The Disney that was known while Walt and the rest of the original Disney family were alive and running the company did not appear to be trying to spread a racist message with their entertainment."

The Song of the South says, lol wut?

ChatGPT at least has the excuse of making a prediction before the race. The "person" writing TFA got the finishing order wrong. (I assume the submission of actually from AI.)

Sandman finished 7th, not 18th. Burnham Square finished 6th, not 11th.

Lawyers in these cases should be sanctioned and whatever other punishments are usual for lying to the court. "My computer did it" is worse than "my dog ate my homework" on the hierarchy of unacceptable excuses. Especially after multiple incidents have been widely reported. Anyone trying the "I thought it was just a fancy web search" is either lying or incompetent. Not that it ever should have been an acceptable excuse. There are dedicated legal databases for such things. Any lawyer using a general web search (the thing they claim they think the LLM is replacing) for case law is a bad lawyer.

Any clients should be examining their bills very closely. Were you billed for 4 hours of senior partner time when the work was a 1st year spending 15 minutes with ChatGPT?

For the sake of argument, let's assume there are some things Windows does well. Search is not, and never has been, one of them. I think after 30+ years it's time give up. There are tools like Agent Ransack that do search on Windows right. You can search by file name and/or contents. Search by date, file size, extension. Search with regex, wild cards, or literal strings. No fudging results like it's being paid on commission--searching for "tests" does not return results for "test"--and no fancy guessing on what you meant--search for "mime" does not return results for "meme".

That other groups have accomplished this with much less resources than Microsoft has, might just mean MS doesn't have what it takes for this particular task.

This is the answer. Leadership doesn't need an engineering background, they need a manufacturing background. Boeing needs to be a company whose mission is to build airplanes for profit. Not a company whose mission is solely to generate profit.

Jack Welch and his cult are the worst thing that ever happened to the USA.

The pickle jar of singles buried in my backyard is also not FDIC insured. Things that aren't banks or credit unions don't have all the features of a bank or credit union.

I also wondered about that upper limit.

My quick research indicates this is not a theoretical limit, that something happens to black holes beyond that limit, but a practical one.

Black holes take time to grow, and the universe hasn't been around long enough for any to grow past 50 billion solar masses.

https://www.newscientist.com/a...

Check back in a few billion years and that limit will be increased.

How does someone who is broke pay $250 million bail?

How about search results for the thing I searched for, not the things you think I should have searched for?

That a third of warehouse employees in the USA work for Amazon does not seem to be an appropriate use of "only". That's a large percentage for one company.

It was called Made for Love. Ray Romano was great.

If you're applying to another position, you're likely looking for something you're not getting where you are. If the internal transfer is rejected before you even get to speaking with the hiring manager, the message seems pretty clear: you have no career path with this employer.

This is how many companies devolve into mediocrity. Anyone with any prospects eventually leaves for greener pastures or is poached away. There are groups and entire divisions that over time become nothing but folks who either have no where else to go, lack the ambition to go, or lack the confidence to take a chance on a new position.

This includes management, ESPEICALLY management.

There is always a choice. You can not hire that person. In fact, I'd say that's the "no choice" decision. If half your team doesn't like the candidate, having more rounds of interviews isn't going to change that. You don't hire that person (unless you as boss make the decision to overrule that half of your team, and you don't need more interviews for that).

And the best way to lose good talent is by wasting their time. And needless rounds of interviews are a waste of time. Seriously, as other have said, 3 rounds: prelim HR screen, manager qualifications check, & team fit (either as a group or a serious of 1-on-1s). Maybe a 4th if you need a tie-breaker between 2 candidates.

More than that is a red flag of management buried in bureaucracy.

So "we had an election that was stolen from us" is irresponsible, but "this was a fraudulent election" is good? And that gets modded informative?

Reminds me why I come to /. less and less as time goes on.