Denotating it is exactly what the Bluetooth name does. *Detonating* it, on the other hand...

You realize that's the point, right?

Yours is a far more eloquent way of saying what I had intended to: why is this on Slashdot? Is there any relevance at all? I fail to see it.

If these athletes were coached by AI, well... maybe, but that's a stretch. But they're not; they are just taking more extreme measures to performance enhancement than other athletes. And while I know (and employ) some smart jocks, I had the same experience as you in secondary school, because I, too, was not a jock.

I seem to have had a very similar progression. I still tend to think in "/." replacement operators, but it's been perhaps 15 years since I've really used Wolfram Language.

Only recently has it been anything other than relative ranking.

Do you really say "lol"?

What questions that they asked, for which he said the answers were on the web site, can he not legally answer?

He clearly had an axe to grind with CNBC, given his multiple passive-aggressive mentions of how they predicted his downfall.

The one interviewer appeared to strike a body blow when she asked if his motivations were tied to a performance-based compensation package. All of GameStop's flailing malarky makes sense through that lens: the CEO was trying a hail mary, 'cause otherwise he gets didly-squat. Part of that malarky is claiming to own 5% of eBay when, as the main interviewer pointed out, most of that so-called ownership was through derivatives. This guy's a fraud. Time to short GameStop.

The interview shows the CEO is kind of a jerk. He probably shouldn't be put in situations where communication is a requirement, like public interviews that are intended to help achieve an aggressive goal.

It's like he didn't understand he was on air during the conversation, despite the host clearly calling out that there was an audience listening.

The stark response from eBay is certainly understandable, having seen the interview.

Agreed that the Mach-E is a terrible name. But how did they screw up such a guaranteed out-of-the-park home run with an electric Mustang? I mean the whole image of the Mustang is a sporty performance vehicle for the young and stupidly lead-footed. Mustangs are classically known for acceleration and EVs are wickedly good at that. I mean, if Ford were to create a 1965-styled electric Mustang, I shudder to think how many boomers would buy them. They were the dream car of an entire generation.

Ford, are you listening?

What if you write a bunch of random noise of the same file size to weights.bin ... what happens then?

As a friend of mine in an uncharacteristic fit of insight once said, as long as there is a decision point that can be discovered, yes and the code goes this way, no and the code goes that way, it is in principle possible to write a patch to circumvent any DRM.

Here, there is a timeout test.

Need I say more?

"Opt out of all FOG DATA SCIENCE data sets"

What -- exactly -- does that do, how quickly, and what are some of the side-effects?\

Underneath, it says "You will be removed from all our data sets." And yet I doubt that very much. Surely there will be an entry in a database somewhere saying "Device identifier ________-____-_____-_____-_____ requested removed date-and-time _____ from IP address _____", etc.
And does that only retroactively remove data? Suppose they snarf up another dataset, bought from someone else or collected by themselves. Is that data also removed from their datasets, or does another removal request have to be made?

"Science is about a specific process: you make a hypothesis, you set up a test of your hypothesis, you test it, find it true or not and based on that your hypothesis becomes a scientific theory or a rejected hypothesis."

That's the junior-high version of science. The one done poorly on cardboard. It's sad that people still trot out the whole "it's a process" trope.

And yet that one sentence makes more sense than the rest of the post.

The classic counter-example is Cheap Trick's Live at Budokan album which for many, myself included, had the definitive versions of many of their songs. If memory serves, they spliced a couple of different shows together for the release, but it was done pretty seamlessly.