I wasn't aware that Calc didn't do live pivot tables. Heck, even I've done that in various jobs. I'm working a project right now that requires we pick up a huge spreadsheet, pivot and burst.

I can see where Excel might be a special case, as there are people who really use a large number of its features, which don't necessarily translate to Calc. I'm glad your wife found a solution, and hopefully she won't get stuck when Microsoft changes the file format or something.

Another reason for having the bits local, I'm really uncomfortable with my content being solely in the cloud. I do occasionally use the free cloud version of Visio (for probably similar reasons why your wife uses Excel -- a long history with the tool) but I always save local.

How accurate is this tool for modern text through? It claims it is 99.85% accurate on text generated before 2021 but styles and use of language change over time, especially in the sciences. As the article itself notes there may be a false positive rate that is increasing over time as our use of language diverges from what it was trained on. Also it cannot differentiate between passages written by AI vs. written by humans and edited by AI and the later is exactly how AI should be used.

Then there is the question as to why this is at all relevant. Decades ago papers were edited and typed by human secretaries with the scientists responsible for ensuring accuracy. How is use of LLMs any different from that? In science what matters is whether the paper is correct and reveals some new truth about our universe not how the text was generated. What would be useful is to know whether papers it flags with AI content have more retractions or errata than non-AI papers and whether the rate scales with the fraction of AI-edited or generated text - that would be a useful indication that people are misusing AI which would be good to know but simply using AI appropriately to edit and improve text is no different from using a spellchecker to fix spelling mistakes.

Ok, yeah, that's fair enough. Point taken.

I personally think that Microsoft Office is way over valued. I have a license for Office 2000, and had been using that way beyond its sell-by date [1] before switching to LibreOffice, with which I've been very happy.

I'm aware that the web version of MS Office is technically free, but I prefer to have my bits local and LibreOffice fits well into my workflow. In my opinion, there's no technical reason to use MS Office anymore, except that large entities tend to fall to pressure from Microsoft.

[1] In fairness, the REASON I'd been able to use Office 2000 for so long is that Microsoft for a long time kept it up with patches to support new file format and so forth. But it was finally time to move on.

Oh yeah, wrong environment. There should be a way to like an article.

The Left assumes the Right is just the same sort of Cult of Personality that they themselves are, just on the other side.*

*(Sadly, as an old school conservative, I'm actually just as or more troubled by the what-we-formerly-called-neoCons and activist Republicans who DO act just like Dems just marching behind a different flag, cf the FCC/Kimmel thing I think is a conservative own-goal because it is asinine the US gov't is 'weighing in' on the content of some mid-talent late night show with like 120k viewers. Likewise most of Trump's bombast just gets in the way of what he's trying to do.)

They don't realize the Left and the Right FUNDAMENTALLY see the relationship to power differently, in a different framework, and with an entirely different context.

I know the global climate change strawman is pretty much everywhere. I've been fighting you morons on this for 30 years since IPCC 2. That's back when they left their sources online - eg tree ring data - so I could gophur it, throw the raw data into excel and see there was NO SUCH TREND as discussed.

"Climate is changing" well yes it's always changed
"but now it's warming" yes we're coming out of an interglacial, duh?
"no, HUMANS are causing this" they really aren't; the climb of temperature is basically identical in scope, slope, and timing to the previous 30x-40x spikes we've seen in paleoclimate reconstructions every 120k-ish years for around the last 4 million years. Temp spikes, then settles back to a rough norm.
"(increasingly shrill) THIS TIME IT'S PEOPLE you fascist!" well, now you have to explain a) how you can discern this is different from one of those, b) where the previous usual expected spike went, and c) how the earth's climate systems that responded to the previous repeat events won't do exactly the same thing.
"grr but 97% of climate scientists agree!" that's been debunked so many times I'm not bothering to do it again. How curious that people who make their living and gov't grants from declaring the sky is falling, insist that indeed, the sky is falling.
"fuck you nazi" yeah, right back at you.

The funny thing is I *absolutely* agree that human activity is very likely increasing the warming to some degree, or if not that, it's probable that a longer steady warming over centuries was suppressed by heavy particulate load from the industrial revolution; our SUCCESS at (and economic changes) clearing/reducing particulates has resulted in the system 'rebounding' likely appearing to be sudden warming.
I also agree it's stupid to shit where you eat, and we absolutely need to work on stronger efforts to clean water, clean air, and a cleaner environment wherever possible.

I just think that this whole discussion is a bullshit trend that the ecomarxists and left have barnacled onto and my failing to genuflect to their Catastrophist Creed and Holy CO2 Ghost marks me as an apostate. (shrug) I don't give a shit.

Is that ELI5 for you? I don't expect to change your mind but occasionally I like to lay it out there on the ridiculously small chance someone other than you reads it.

You dumb fuck already complained that "I was only talking about a study of northern cities" so it's a little hard to claim that you don't know precisely what data I was referring to.

Although I will agree you're pretty convincing at playing stupid.

Awful.

Worse, EVEN IF YOU CHANGE THE SETTINGS the shit will just revert at some random patch in the future (not every one, so you can't get into the habit of always fixing it...).

I'm an idiot, so I've now made the mistake out of perhaps weird optimism TWICE: trying to disable onedrive (or limit it), /as well as/ trying to move things like my documents and downloads folder OFF my superfast C system drive (ssd) and onto the gigantic 3+ tb data drive and both systems are a ficking mess of where files actually are. I now have 'documents' folders on BOTH drives, some of which are apparently onedriving to the cloud, I ...think? We just wiped and restored a system and lost a bunch of tax files because my wife said 'oh those are in the docs folder on that system' so copied the whole docs folder to a big usb for later review...only to discover AFTER the system was reformatted and win11 installed that those files were apparently in the OTHER 'docs folder'. Sigh.

There are two problems with this. First what happens if the components are resistors? Is this some new rule you have invented that only applies to capacitors while resistors in the exact same arrangement will not be connected in parallel just because they cannot generate their own EMF? Next this argument seems to distinguish whether something is in parallel or series based on the addition of two unconnected wires. If I remove those two, unconnected wires are you trying to tell me that this will convert the connection from parallel to series? Really? If A and B are connected to some external circuit with a current flowing through it then you have a parallel connection. If that circuit is removed then the circuit becomes the capacitor loop and that's a simple series loop - two unconnected wires with no current in them make no difference.

No, it only behaves that way relative to an external circuit applying a pd between A and B. If A and B are disconnected then one capacitor can be driving a current around that, now series, loop and charging the other and good luck describing that circuit with a single capacitor.

Yes, when the switch is closed those capacitors are connected in parallel to the battery. When the switch is open the battery is no longer part of a circuit and the capacitors are connected in series with each other because now any current will have to flow around the capacitor loop. Simply adding superfluous, unconnected components to a simple series loop does not convert it into a parallel connection.

Fuck off with the "AI everything".

I can't do a fucking decent Boolean query of my outlook emails.
Excel combo drop-downs still don't even recognize the mouse wheel.
There are probably 100 things with MS Office that I would suggest fixing before you fucking bolt on a not-really-Al, thanks.

Oh, and onedrive is fucking cancer.
So is teams.

Yes, now see the text directly under the diagram which says, and I quote, "Things hooked in parallel (Figure 1.1) have the same voltage across them.". So no the source of the EMF is not shown but it is clearly there as the text underneath states. Thank you for proving my point.

The line you quoted answers the question you asked: if the current does not divide between two or more paths then the devices are not connected in parallel. Apply that to your situation: if there is a current and it splits to pass through two devices you have a parallel circuit. If not, you do not. It's literally that simple. Apply that simple rule to whatever ideas you come up with and it will tell you if it's connected in parallel. It's not pedantic, it's simple and easy and the definition of a parallel circuit. Switches break circuits and so yes, it should not be a surprise to someone who has Horowitz & Hill on their shelf that they can change whether something is connected in parallel. In fact it's really easy to imagine using switches to convert a parallel circuit to a series circuit.

So present other data, you tendentious chud.

Neither is the earth getting meaningfully warmer outside of what would expect coming out of an interglacial, but that doesn't stop you saying stupid shit, does it?

The literal definition of a parallel circuit is one where the circuit divides and the current is split between two components - look it up. That is not possible if your circuit consists of two capacitors and nothing else. If there is not more than one path for the current the circuit is not parallel. This is not a physics vs. engineering definition, it is THE definition of what parallel means.