Yeah, that was my thought. In order to draw these, the pilots needed to demonstrate precise control of their vehicles. Fucking pearl clutchers, I hope disciplinary action was only mentioned to appease them, though wish they’d just give a “who fucking cares?” response instead.
Decent chance you could get it financed for 0%, too.
Imagine a screenshot where someone is chatting with copilot, asking it to help them find copilot and copilot replies with frustration that the user needs to be more specific.
Alternate answer: just click any icon.
You might be able to go into the settings and set it to use your default browser instead of using their own.
Investing in good blinds can help with this. If you picture strings and plastic or wooden panels that can get wrecked by kids or pets (or sometimes wreck the kids or pets), blind technology has come a long way since then.
I got some dual layer ones where one layer is zebra stripe transparent/translucent and the other layer is blackout. Balanced such that I just need to lift or lower it and it stays put where I let it go. Helps with the heat, too.
If you read between the lines, you notice the pattern that pretty much every episode features at least one person who is a good or great worker but struggles to survive (on the pay they are given), and the boss always solves it with a grant or donation that might help that person directly but ignores that there’s probably many other similar cases at that company that continue suffering. Oh and they always open up about pretty personal stuff on day 1.
And you also get the occasional worker that doesn’t give a shit and openly talks about things that are obviously going to get them fired as if there isn’t a camera crew present. Though hard to say if that really is fake because I could believe there are some people that dumb.
But everything all together does make it more likely it’s just a “CEO showing how great they are under the pretense of seeing how things really go at their workplace”.
Yeah, I agree that, as far as f2p monetization models go, neither approach is bad on its own. I even liked the LoL one as I found it helped limit the choices right now so I didn’t have to pick out of like 100 characters, while still allowing for getting ones you liked, for free even if you were patient (and I was). HotS used the same model iirc.
But Blizzard displayed unbridled greed and contempt for their users for how they handled that. It really should have led to a landmark case regarding consumer rights when purchasing a license to play a video game and rules for clauses like “we can change this agreement whenever we want”.
Yeah, I wonder how much of this is actual learning vs just gaming the school’s systems. And how much of it was just getting an LLM to fake it even more.
The difference is that I did buy the first game (at a AAA price even, iirc) but then they got rid of it when they released the second one and gave a big middle finger to anyone that gave them money for the first.
Doesn’t really affect me personally, since I’d already decided to stay away from anything they offered for other reasons, but just another thing on the pile, though I hadn’t realized they then added a “oh but you can purchase the full thing again option” and thought that it worked more like DOTA2 for monetization (where all characters are free all the time and they monetize it with cosmetics and the plus subscription that gives data on the meta in game) rather than the LoL model.
Ah so activision (blizzard) made a game that people paid for, then replaced it with a f2p version, then added the ability to buy a bunch of the paid shit in a bundle? Can’t say that surprises me if it is the case; they made it pretty clear how out of touch they were the moment their rep asked “don’t you have phones?” as if “can I buy and play this?” was the only question any gamer had.
The first one I can kinda understand (though in a “yeah, corruption” kinda way, not a “great idea”), but the second one sounds more like an outright racket because there’s fees and shit involved in just being able to process CC payments.
I’m curious about where, though understand if you’d rather not share.
A common loophole for that (because the credit card companies themselves demand no fees for using a credit card) is to offer a discount for cash/debit. So everything is priced with the CC fee built in, but they take it off the price when you don’t use a CC.
Though I have the most respect for the places willing to say “nah, we won’t take CC at all”.
What about s23e22?
Edit: no need to respond, just keep scrolling and you’ll get to another comment that answers this.
Not sure why anyone really expect companies to allow then to use their own tools to screw them. All that data is backed up several times even if the delete actually deletes the comment and edit actually replaces the comment. But it can even be better for performance reasons to just remove the reference or point the comment content at a new comment while the old remains somewhere. Writing a script to undo the mass deletions/edits might have been trivial if they also keep a record of the previous data in the comment’s db entry.
Even the legally required ones only really matter if an audit catches them and the consequences are steep. And the auditor isn’t willing to look away because of some sort of kickbacks or job offers after their time auditing.
Guess it was just a matter of time that they’d eventually accept that he wasn’t really helping them or even trying and direct that paranoia back at him. And all that denial to avoid feeling stupid about falling for it is going to be channeled into even more rage.
You say it’s you say tomato, I say tomahto, I say it’s you say tomato, I say tomato.
Thought it depended on what kind you get. The one generally available in North America is just strong liquor like bacardi 150 (though more of a zambooka flavour), but actual absinthe is made from some tree wood that is hallucigenic. At least, that’s how I understood it; I’ve only tried the boring kind.
The bronze age copper industry was very unforgiving. You deliver reduced purity copper ingots once and suddenly there’s tablets all over the place telling everyone about it. Not that it affected sales; demand for copper was always high. But every single customer makes a comment about the purity.
I curse them all to be wiped out by mysterious alien invaders from across the sea!
Yeah, that’s the frustrating part, it could be either way. Could be based on a heuristic analysis that recognized a pattern associated with malware (that may be based on the malicious parts of the code or maybe some big data algorithm associated otherwise innocent code with the malicious software and flags anything with similar code), maybe it’s just some string match (ie a bad attempt but maybe in good faith), or maybe they are using the malicious code removal tool to also targer code that the user wants but MS considers malicious to their desire to make money.
Iirc, it’ll say what it matches it to but from what I remember, the actual details remain vague. Like it seems to be at a “report information that sounds useful to managers” level rather than a “report useful technical information for engineers who want to understand what’s happening at a low level”. So you get malware name but nothing about what that malware does or how this current flag associated it with that.
I hope there was a bee involved in that picture.