They fact-checked constantly during the first half, which was a huge improvement over former debates. Honestly I thought this was better moderated than any previous debate involving Trump.

Harris campaign requested unmuted mics - it was Trump’s team that was worried about him making an ass of himself with interruptions. With that in mind they might be letting him talk because it’s what Harris wanted in the first place.

A lot of people are doing work that can be automated in part by AI, and there’s a good chance that they’ll lose their jobs in the next few years if they can’t figure out how to incorporate it into their workflow. Some people are indeed out of the workforce or in industries that are safe from AI, but that doesn’t invalidate the hype for the rest of us.

This is like saying that automobiles are overhyped because they can’t drive themselves. When I code up a new algorithm at work, I’m spending an hour or two whiteboarding my ideas, then the rest of the day coding it up. AI can’t design the algorithm for me, but if I can describe it in English, it can do the tedious work of writing the code. If you’re just using AI as a Google replacement, you’re missing the bigger picture.

My understanding is that there was no hard evidence and the witness did not wish to testify, so this was a plea deal to make him confess and give the victim closure. Still feels wrong given that he did confess, but if the alternative was no probation I guess this is better than nothing.

I feel like we’re saying the same thing. Your argument (and mine) is that it’s hard for people to understand ADHD unless they have it. For this reason, people like me should keep their mouth shut about it, and if this weren’t an “unpopular opinion” thread I normally would. But for the same reason, I feel that people who haven’t had a proper diagnosis should be cautious about assuming that they do have ADHD, because maybe they don’t understand it either. If I didn’t follow my own advice, I might join the self-diagnosed crowd and start sharing personal coping strategies, and if it turns out I don’t have ADHD, those comments could be ignorant, offensive, or even harmful.

I suppose I’m arguing that ADHD is an extreme of something that most people experience to a lesser degree all the time. Many will relate to these memes and assume that they have ADHD, not recognizing that these can also be normal behaviors. Kind of like how you can be sad without being clinically depressed. I think I’m an asshole for suggesting that there are people who will blame ADHD for behaviors that they are more in control of than they realize - for suggesting that ADHD is a medical condition and not merely a club that one can invite themselves into because they relate to a meme. Any sort of gatekeeping is assholish I suppose, but respectfully, that’s how it looks to me.

I feel like an asshole for saying this but I tend to agree. I relate to every meme/post about ADHD I’ve ever seen, and most people I know do as well, so either we all have ADHD or, more likely, it’s being misrepresented.

The way I see it a day might come when I have to explain to my kids what I did to try to make a better future for them. I could tell them I worked hard to put a roof over their head. I could tell them I changed my lifestyle to try to reduce my carbon footprint. If Trump wins I expect they’ll want to know what I did about that. I don’t have time to volunteer, but if $100 can help pay for an ad in a swing state and win Harris half a vote, that’s better than nothing. Then I can tell my kids I tried to protect their access to abortion, tried to slow down climate change, tried to depoliticize the Supreme Court, tried to strengthen our alliance with Europe, and tried to keep hate and bigotry from having a voice in our government.

For thousands of years the ruling class has tolerated the rest of us because they needed us for labor and protection. We’re approaching the first time in human history where this may no longer be the case. If any of us are invited to the AI utopia, I suspect it will only be to worship those who control it. I’m not sure what utility we’ll have to offer beyond that. I doubt they’ll keep us around just to collect UBI checks.

Right on. AI feels like a looming paradigm shift in our field that we can either scoff at for its flaws or start learning how to exploit for our benefit. As long as it ends up boosting productivity it’s probably something we’re going to have to learn to work with for job security.

• Cloud providers have financial incentive to push microservice architectures
• Cloud providers give corporate consultants statistics like “microservice architectures are proven to be X% more likely to succeed than monolithic architectures”
• Cloud providers offer subscription-based tools and seminars to help companies transition to microservice architectures
• Companies invest in these tools and seminars and mandate that all new projects adopt microservice architectures

This is how it went down with Agile at my company 10 years ago, and some process certifications and database technologies before that. Based on what I’m hearing from upper management microservice are probably next.

From my perspective the corporate obsession with microservices is a natural evolution from their ongoing obsession with Agile. One of the biggest consequences of Agile adoption I’ve seen has been the expectation of working prototypes within the first few months of development, even for large projects. For architects this could mean honing in on solutions in weeks that we would have had months to settle on in the past. Microservices are attractive in this context because they buy us flexibility without holding up development. Once we’ve identified the services that we’ll need, we can get scrum teams off and running on those services while working alongside them to figure out how they all fit together. Few other architectures give us that kind of flexibility.

All this is to say that if your current silver bullet introduces a unique set of problems, you shouldn’t be surprised if the solutions to those problems start to also look like silver bullets.

I tend to gravitate towards female characters in single player games and I ask myself this same question a lot. The weird thing is that I have no gender preference when my options are more limited - it’s only when I’m being asked to customize my appearance. With male characters I never really know what I’m looking for - usually what looks right is what looks familiar. Maybe I’ll be scrolling through hair options, find something that reminds me of Aragorn, and before I know it that’s who I’m roleplaying. With a female character it’s easier for me to resist these influences and make someone original because I can rely on my own preferences to tell me what looks right. I’ll still play male characters if I have a specific influence in mind, but otherwise I find myself much more likely to actually finish a game as a female PC.

I kept hearing this complaint but when I finally watched it there was only one scene where I couldn’t hear the dialogue (when Neil is scoping out the airport bank vault) and it seemed very much intentional. Did you find this to be an issue throughout the entire film?

Came in here to criticize the concept of a smoking ban based on comparisons to prohibition and the “war on drugs” in America, but reading through the article it actually sounds somewhat reasonable. Using regulation to reduce nicotine content sounds fantastic - no one should be forced to smoke if they don’t want to, and making tobacco less addicting might actually help to accomplish that.

Still not a fan of prohibition as a means of addressing health issues, but I suppose it’s different when your country has universal healthcare.

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the unconditional support that the US has shown to Israel during this crisis. I understand why we must stand with our friends and allies. I understand that Israel has immense strategic value as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Middle East. I understand our desire to support democracies in the region. I understand that they have a right to defend their people. I understand that our support is necessary to keep things from cascading further out of hand. But what I don’t understand is how we can provide all this support and still have no leverage to ease the suffering of innocent Palestinians. Are we even capable of applying diplomatic pressure on Israel, or has our support become something more akin to an entitlement?

OP says you can sync memories both ways - easy solution is to just take turns.

I was against drilling until Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia produces 10% of the global oil supply, so we can’t really sanction them without impacting the global economy. We’ve been draining our strategic petroleum reserves since the war started, and while we might have enough saved up to get through the current crisis, I wouldn’t blame the white house for wanting to increase domestic supply as a contingency - especially if this turns out to be just the first domino in a global conflict.

One clone so that I can be a stay-at-home dad without losing my income. Finally finish grad school and fix up the house. Show my kid the world when they get old enough to appreciate it. Get a second job once they start school - something to get me outside, or working with people face-to-face. That would be amazing.