Certainly many others would have tried to invent something like the web.

HyperCard predated the web browser and had the concept of easy to build pages that linked. Lots of people were working on ways to deliver apps over the Internet.

I think in some alternative timeline we’d still have a lot of interactive content on the Internet somewhat like the web, but probably based on different technology. Maybe more proprietary.

You get to choose how your 401k is invested, though. The only difference is a tax advantage.

The advice is just: save money, let it grow using compound interest, use tax laws to your advantage.

There’s no “trust the government” in that advice.

I think it’s more that it’s hard to understand when you’re extroverted and your job depends on talking to people all day.

I’m sure this is true for some businesses, but there are also tons of businesses that have no vested interest in commercial real estate. It doesn’t explain all of it.

Honestly I think a much better explanation is that on average, bosses like being in the office and they don’t understand why everyone isn’t like them. Top leadership tends to be extroverted and they got where they are by lots of networking. They don’t have enough appreciation that for a lot of other types of people and types of jobs, being in the office just makes things harder.

GPT-3.5 seems to have a problem of recency bias. With long enough input it can forget its prompt or be convinced by new arguments.

GPT-4 is not immune though better.

I’ve had some luck with a post-prompt. Put the user’s input, then follow up with a final sentence reminding the model of the prompt and desired output format.

It’s always a good idea to shop around when it comes to car insurance. Every company has their own formula.

Probably someone else’s insurance went down from $750 to $450.

Pepperoni

Or PUPperoni

Robot vacuums are great, but my Roomba is incredibly unreliable. I’m buying Roborock next time.

Do they?

When Republicans are in power they never actually cut spending.

Doesn’t that also mean that ONE malicious person can get traffic off their local street or hurt a competitor’s business?

Just like moderating Lemmy, effectively policing user-generated content is a huge challenge.

I don’t think we know that yet, and I think the discovery will be interesting.

How many reports were there? Were they credible? What other sources of truth did Google consult in deciding to ignore those reports?

Google gets lots of reports and needs to filter out spam, and especially malicious reports like trying to mark a competitor’s business as closed, or trying to get less traffic in your neighborhood for selfish reasons. It wouldn’t be reasonable for Google to accept every user suggestion either.

So if Google reached out to the town and the town said the bridge is fine, then it’s not Google’s fault. If they ignored multiple credible complaints because the area was too rural to care about, that might be negligent.

Sure they do. Look at all of the posts from my neighbors on Facebook and Nextdoor every time a developer tries to build an apartment building instead of a single family home in our neighborhood.

Usually rich people get out of stuff by hiring smart lawyers and listening to what they say, though.

Some people say there’s no malware for macOS and that’s obviously not true.

But others say macOS has malware so it’s no better than Windows in that regard, but I don’t think that’s true either.

Look at this example. It only works if it tricks users into downloading and running an unsigned executable, bypassing sometimes multiple warnings.

No, but honestly I wasn’t expecting them to vote to impeach one of their own in the first place.

How did that happen?

Yeah, don’t do that. Users could accidentally or maliciously type something that would get executed as python code and break your program

This is my vote too.

We have Orbi. I tried using power line to bridge the satellites, but it turned out it was unnecessary. Orbi uses a separate backhaul wireless network between the base and satellites and it worked really well.

Trump can do whatever he wants.

He’s never once listened to his lawyers before. Why would he do so now?

I agree with you, but politics is complicated. If she felt like continuing to fight for nuclear at that time would be unpopular, it might not have been worth it. It probably would have made it impossible to achieve other goals.

But the Supreme Court is part of the whole system of appeals courts. They all have lifetime appointments. It makes no sense. You’d just be giving regional judges more power and the country would have even more stark divided across state lines.