Case in point, I have no clue what you wrote, but the intent is clear:

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Not sure why you’ve gotten downvoted for that, as it’s part of the referenced rule and also true. Unless you’re someone who sees a word in a foreign language and has their brain turn off in response, this should be intelligible to someone who understands English and who doesn’t understand Spanish.

It helps that more than half the words are in English / are used by English speakers: Steam, Proton, Grand Theft Auto 5, Gabe Newell, Linux Mint, Microsoft, Windows, RAM, 100 FPS, 75 FPS

And the important Spanish words are easy to understand:

“Gracias” is pretty commonly understood even by bon-Spanish speakers.

“Uso Software Libre” is pretty obvious, since Libre is a term used in FOSS communities. “Uso” is the most complicated part and I suspect if I didn’t know Spanish I’d just think it meant “Use,” and “Use Libre Software!” is close enough to the intended meaning

Unless Telemetria doesn’t mean Telemetry, it’s pretty obvious.

If I blanked out all the other Spanish words I think the effect would be pretty much the same.

Certainly the latter.

I have pretty decent insurance through work, but if I’m picking up a prescription, it’s cheaper for me to say I don’t have insurance and use a free discount card (like GoodRx) than to use my insurance. We’re talking $150-$200 for one prescription (a one month supply) with insurance vs $30 without.

To be fair, I have an HDHP with an HSA so my insurance is only supposed to negotiate a discount until I hit the deductible, rather than paying for it. Full price is $200-$250, I think? (I get generics and each generic variant has a slightly different price.) So technically they’re providing a discount, just not a very good one.

Insurance also likes to require a “prior authorization,” which was always a fun surprise after making it through the pharmacy line. That normally takes a couple days to resolve, at minimum, and sometimes longer. If you’re not familiar with prior auths, it’s basically when the insurance company says “Hey doc, can you justify why you’re prescribing this and answer these eight questions?” and then they have someone without a medical degree review the answer and see if it’s good enough.

The only downside to paying out of pocket with a discount card is that the $30 doesn’t go toward my deductible. But since my deductible is multiple thousands of dollars, unless something else happens during the year, I won’t hit my deductible off the $150-$200 prescriptions + regular doctor visits alone. But that’s at most $360 out of pocket that wouldn’t have gone toward the deductible, assuming I had a health crisis in December, vs $1440-$2040 saved if I don’t.

X-rays are even worse, because you’re not told the price ahead of time.

Illegal vote suppression elected Trump, but even if it hadn’t, you should blame Democrats before blaming people who voted for third party candidates. Now, if you’re talking about people who “protest voted” by voting for Trump (in both the primaries and the election), then sure. Those people did, in fact, play an instrumental part in electing him.

Why blame Democrats? Well, beyond just kinda being Republican-lites:

• for opposing ranked choice voting (and alternatives)
• for not rallying around progressive candidates
• for not choosing Kamala via primary elections in 2024

Democrats are the bare minimum “harm reduction” party, and I don’t bare any ill will toward people who voted for them rather than a party that would actually try to effect change, but the opposite mindset - blaming third party voters for not voting for Democrats - is very shortsighted. And as third party voters have never had the power to enact RCV or STAR voting or otherwise improve the system, blaming them instead of the Democrats who have had that power is inane.

I’ve voted for a Democrat every single presidential election that I’ve been able to, but I honestly wish I hadn’t. I’d much rather there be more visibility for third parties, and for more people to feel empowered to vote for third party candidates.

Glaring doesn’t imply a negative meaning. In this case it’s used to mean “obvious”.

Unless you’re suggesting that “glaring” means “obviously staring” (it doesn’t - that would be “glaringly staring”) this doesn’t make any sense.

“[He’s] glaring at [direct object]” is an example of a sentence that uses the present participle form of the verb “glare,” which explicitly communicates anger or fierceness.

If you’re not convinced, read on.

—————

The verb form that takes an object is:

Glare (verb with object): to express with a glare. They glared their anger at each other

The noun form the above definition references is:

Glare (noun): a fiercely or angrily piercing stare.

“Glaring” can be an adjective and one of those definitions does mean “obvious” or “conspicuous,” but the use of that form of the word doesn’t make sense in her sentence. Think about a comparable sentence like “The undercover operative is conspicuous at the bar,” where the bar is the location. (Even then, most people wouldn’t use “glaring” in that sentence, as “conspicuous” or “obvious” are much less ambiguous; the operative could be staring piercingly or angrily at the bar rather than being glaring while being at the bar.) Another example that makes a bit more sense is “The effect of the invasive plants is glaring at the park.”

But for that interpretation to be valid here, you’d have to:

• believe that the dude is trying to hide/blend in, or otherwise explain how he - not what he’s doing, but the dude himself - is conspicuous
• believe that the woman’s referring to her own ass as a location
• assume that she isn’t commenting on how the guy is looking at her ass, even though the joke depends on giving him something different to look at

That’s a bit of a stretch.

There’s a whole history of people, both inside and outside the field, shifting the definition of AI to exclude any problem that had been the focus of AI research as soon as it’s solved.

Bertram Raphael said “AI is a collective name for problems which we do not yet know how to solve properly by computer.”

Pamela McCorduck wrote “it’s part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, but that’s not thinking” (Page 204 in Machines Who Think).

In Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Douglas Hofstadter named “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet” Tesler’s Theorem (crediting Larry Tesler).

https://praxtime.com/2016/06/09/agi-means-talking-computers/ reiterates the “AI is anything we don’t yet understand” point, but also touches on one reason why LLMs are still considered AI - because in fiction, talking computers were AI.

The author also quotes Jeff Hawkins’ book On Intelligence:

Now we can see the entire picture. Nature first created animals such as reptiles with sophisticated senses and sophisticated but relatively rigid behaviors. It then discovered that by adding a memory system and feeding the sensory stream into it, the animal could remember past experiences. When the animal found itself in the same or a similar situation, the memory would be recalled, leading to a prediction of what was likely to happen next. Thus, intelligence and understanding started as a memory system that fed predictions into the sensory stream. These predictions are the essence of understanding. To know something means that you can make predictions about it. …

The human cortex is particularly large and therefore has a massive memory capacity. It is constantly predicting what you will see, hear, and feel, mostly in ways you are unconscious of. These predictions are our thoughts, and, when combined with sensory input, they are our perceptions. I call this view of the brain the memory-prediction framework of intelligence.

If Searle’s Chinese Room contained a similar memory system that could make predictions about what Chinese characters would appear next and what would happen next in the story, we could say with confidence that the room understood Chinese and understood the story. We can now see where Alan Turing went wrong. Prediction, not behavior, is the proof of intelligence.

Another reason why LLMs are still considered AI, in my opinion, is that we still don’t understand how they work - and by that, I of course mean that LLMs have emergent capabilities that we don’t understand, not that we don’t understand how the technology itself works.

We are. Why do you think we stopped?

Thank you! That gives me a starting point that should be easy to look up!

Why is 255 off limits? What is 127.0.0.0 used for?

To clarify, I meant that specific address - if the range starts at 127.0.0.1 for local, then surely 127.0.0.0 does something (or is reserved to sometimes do something, even if it never actually does in practice), too.

Advanced setup would include a reverse proxy to forward the requests from the applications port to the internet

I use Traefik as my reverse proxy, but I have everything on subdomains for simplicity’s sake (no path mapping except when necessary, which it generally isn’t). I know 127.0.0.53 has special meaning when it comes to how the machine directs particular requests, but I never thought to look into whether Traefik or any other reverse proxy supported routing rules based on the IP address. But unless there’s some way to specify that IP and the IP of the machine, it would be limited to same device communications. Makes me wonder if that’s used for any container system (vs the use of the 10, 172.16-31, and 192.168 blocks that I’ve seen used by Docker).

Well this is another advanced setup but if you wanted to segregate two application on different subnets you can. I’m not sure if there is a security benefit by adding the extra hop

Is there an extra hop when you’re still on the same machine? Like an extra resolution step?

I still don’t understand why .255 specifically is prohibited. 8 bits can go up to 255, so it seems weird to prohibit one specific value. I’ve seen router subnet configurations that explicitly cap the top of the range at .254, though - I feel like I’ve also seen some that capped at .255 but I don’t have that hardware available to check. So my assumption is that it’s implementation specific, but I can’t think of an implementation that would need to reserve all the .255 values. If it was just the last one, that would make sense - e.g., as a convention for where the DHCP server lives on each network.

Why is 255 off limits? What is 127.0.0.0 used for?

The witch turned the creep into a woman and the spell was complete by the time she flew away. Unfortunately, like many women, the creep was born with the body of a man (she’s AMAB). Maybe the witch could have changed her body, too, but that would have made things far too easy, given that the point of the curse was to teach her empathy.

I had never heard of this show before today but what you just described makes it sound cool as fuck, I’m gonna check it out now

The one I grabbed to test was the ROG Azoth.

I also checked my Iris and Moonlander - both cap out at 6, but I believe I can update that to be higher with QMK or add a config key via Oryx on the Moonlander to turn it on.

deleted by creator

Per this thread from 2009, the limit was conditional upon using a particular keyboard descriptor documented elsewhere in the spec, but keyboards are not required to use that descriptor.

I tested just now on one of my mechanical keyboards, on MacOS, connected via USB C, using the Online Key Rollover Test, and was able to get 44 keys registered at the same time.

Your reply has nothing to do with fair use doctrine.

Copyright can only be granted to works created by a human, but I don’t know of any such restriction for fair use. Care to share a source explaining why you think only humans are able to use fair use as a defense for copyright infringement?