What’s wild is that one of the people who write anti-cheat software was saying they needed to get their shit working on Linux like yesterday.

So I mean, it crazy that Windows is literally having some folks scramble on how to get their shit working on Steam/Linux.

Yeah, I think that’s the bigger issue here. These devices pay their way by collecting data to sell off. What this “overhual” is indicating is that they haven’t quite figured out how to make these devices not only pay for themselves, but also, generate a net background profit for the company.

The only thing I’m reading from this story is that Amazon is just aiming for more dollar signs from Alexia. I’m going tell you in the day and age of Siri and Whatever Google’s thing is, this is going to backfire massively on Amazon. This will likely collapse whatever paltry Alexia that’s out there. And I have a good feeling they’ll look at this collapse as “well the technology just isn’t a good money maker.” No you idiots, it’s not a mass profit driver. I get how something not drawing double digit percentage gains is a mystery to you all, but just because you cannot buy your fifteenth yacht from it, doesn’t mean that the technology is a failure.

But it’s whatever, Amazon’s ship to wreck.

Open the door HAL

Oh don’t even get me started. Hall effect has been known since 1879, those JoyCons didn’t use it because it was cheaper to use shitty graphite. They literally went the cheap ass route because they didn’t even care.

“Nintendo sues” oh look it’s a day that ends in Y. The only person Nintendo isn’t dead set on suing is Nintendo.

Here’s you 937th remake of Super Mario Bros 2 that you can only rent, have a nice day.

And our online service is absolute trash but you’ll pay anyway to have a legal emulator until we also discontinue that for Super other garbage online service!

I just want to note here for those about to journey into this conversation, there’s a major hiccup that didn’t exist before. The Supreme Court placed an new expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in the 2008 Heller case. This has significantly altered how the second amendment is read in the United States. So what may seem like “brain dead easy” things to do, likely cannot be done as they would be unconstitutional.

I say this because the question posed simply indicates “Present + Congress” which seems to imply, “which laws would you pass to fix gun control issues” and post-2008 that is no longer a thing. Any discussion needs to include at this point a conversation about the Supreme Court, the new understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and that the Justices currently on the bench will likely enforce their new expansive interpretation for their term on the court (which is a lifetime appointment).

We are now at a point that we cannot fix this issue without a Constitutional Amendment, a reorganization of the Supreme Court (packing, impeachment, etc), an incredibly careful tip-toe around this new understanding of the second amendment, and/or talking about the underlying issues that surround gun reform (economic and societal issues).

And we are seeing the consequences of Heller in things like 2022 Bruen which SCOTUS indicated that a “historic standard” should be applied to new gun regulation. This has lead to US v Rahimi where the Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit has removed the Federal protection that folks charged with domestic violence can still obtain a gun as “domestic violence” had no historical standard on which to base on. Which is an absolute astonishing level of logic there.

We are no longer at a phase where legislation alone along the strict lines of “just gun reform”, this new understanding of the second amendment has forever (or at least as long as those Justices sit the bench) altered how we can approach this issue. We cannot just simply say, “let us figure out ways to regulate gun ownership in itself” that is no longer allowed. We can approach the issue indirectly: how do we increase the cost of Interstate gun ownership, how do we regulate the the dissemination of ammunition, how do we address the various issues that draw people into violent crime, how do we address the issue of school shootings at an societal level. But we have been cut off from direct approaches that regulate guns themselves except in the most extreme cases and even then, advocates are continually being handed new tools by the Supreme Court to bring about new challenges for those.

Any meaningful debate about gun control needs to include the Supreme Court. Because given the current Court’s propensity to expand gun rights and the understanding of the second amendment, any law that might get introduced to fix the issue today, could and very likely would be overturned by the court. This has become a new chess piece in this game to be considered since 2008, prior yes this could have been a Congress and President issue alone, but post-2008, the Courts must be considered in the discussion. The Supreme Court too strongly embraces the new understanding of the second amendment to let any direct law be allowed to go unchallenged.

QA for a 3PL. Apparently QA didn’t prior to my arrival try things like entering words in zipcode entry boxes, typing 65537 letters into an address field, or holding the shift key when selecting which State to ship to.

I made a lot of, well not what I would call enemies but I wasn’t exactly friends with any of the developers.

I’m not going to read any responses.

This is likely the wisest part of any comment that’s going to be on this thread. 🤞hopefully I’m wrong.

Where’s the demand for Hamas to end the conflict and to release the hostages?

Israel hasn’t shown any good faith. I think given the situation, if Hamas completely capitulated it would just hasten their complete extermination.

I honestly cannot say that Israeli would show restraint in a surrender, they’ve displayed none and their rhetoric hasn’t indicated any.

If Hamas was to surrender, I don’t think it would lead to peace because Israel does not look like peace is what they want. I think it would lead to millions being murdered because it seems that is what Israel wants.

I don’t disagree with a need for deescalating the situation and some olive branches being brought out, but Israeli leadership themselves are saying things like the goal is to completely destroy Hamas and Palestinian. That’s genocide talk and Israel hasn’t given us any reason to doubt their ambitions.

I get what you’re saying, but Israel is taking and acting like the bully in a school fight that doesn’t know when the fight’s over. In three months, one percent of the entire population of Gaza has been killed. When a battle starts hitting significant measurable percentage of the civilian population, a wise nation would pause the hostilities and reassess. Israel has done quite the opposite and tripled down on their incursion.

There’s no indication that Hamas doing anything to reduce the situation would actually lead to an outcome that would actually reduce the situation. And there’s every indication that doing so would actually speed up their and their civilian population’s demise.

And just so everyone remembers this, Lake Gatún is the primary water source for fresh water in the area.

That little facet plays a non-zero role in any discussion about travel along the canal.

And for those wondering how a canal “uses” water. At some point a lake that was never connected to the ocean, has some small amount of it discharge into the ocean every time a boat moves through the canal.

You can use all kinds of partitions and fancy pumps to reduce the amount of salt water that gets in and fresh water that leaves, but you can never get it to zero. There will always be some salt water getting into the lake and some fresh water making it to the ocean. And that value begins to add up when you have thousands of boats.

Very light details from the court on this.

The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated.

I would be cautious to read any deeper than that. The issue for the injunction wasn’t “does Texas have a right to protect their border?” The lower court had sided with Texas that the US had waived its sovereign immunity from state tort claims seeking injunctive relief, via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Quick primer for those not knowing. A bill is a purposed thing in Congress, if both chambers approve it and the President signs it, it becomes law. These laws can be something like “The Department of Transportation shall build a highway that connects Wapakoneta, OH to Indianapolis, IN” The Department of Transportation is then allowed to build a road and they have to publish all kinds of rules about how they’re going about building it (because remember the law only says build a road, not where to build it, out what material, etc…). We call this regulation. Regulation is NOT law (as Congress+President can only do that) but can carry the weight of it.

The APA is a law that sets up a procedure for regulation. Texas had argued that the Biden Administration did not check off all of the boxes required by the APA to remove the razor wire fence that Texas had erected. The Administration had indicated that, Texas was the one violating all kinds of Federal stuff, there isn’t a need to check the specific boxes that Texas indicated in Court because Texas is the one who started this whole mess. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Texas that “Hey look, I get it, Texas is being a weak ass bitch. BUT, APA says so on those check boxes”. It was a really technical win for Texas.

So it basically boiled down to a question of where those specific line items in the APA are applicable when Texas is the one being the bitch about everything? I’m doubtful SCOTUS viewed this as a larger question about State vs Federal because even the Fifth Circuit (who is very conservative) indicated that the Federal Government was mostly right, BUT, if they didn’t like them forcing that part of the APA on them (the US Government), Congress ought to go back and clarify things.

EDIT: Oh I guess I should indicate what the whole spat started over. Last October Border Patrol snipped some razor wire fence that Texas had put up. Texas sued for destruction of State Property. That’s what this whole thing is all about. Now that the fence can be fully removed with this order from SCOTUS, it’s likely that Texas will seek recompense for their property (AKA, Texas will attempt to make the US taxpayer pay for the clean up of the fence and the US government will likely want to send the clean up bill to Texas).

Well this whole thread restored my faith in humanity.

Also I snickered so it wasn’t completely lost.

Interesting; you have to dig past the usual misandry sites to find an impartial source but Pew research found 53% of stem graduates female in 2018 and rising

I mean, at this point you’re just cherry picking and not doing all that well with it. As indicated from, again YOUR source.

The gender dynamics in STEM degree attainment mirror many of those seen across STEM job clusters. For instance, women earned 85% of the bachelor’s degrees in health-related fields, but just 22% in engineering and 19% in computer science

That lines up with the whole thing I had mentioned here. You keep wishing otherwise, but you also keep providing evidence to the contrary.

So I mean at some point I guess you’ll read your own sources OR you won’t. But the sources you keep providing agree with the original statement that women are under represented in traditional STEM studies. So I mean you square that with yourself however you want.

Nah you’re still being disingenuous. The stats don’t lie - even the stats you provided

I mean you provided those last stats I just gave. That’s literally taken from your link.

I would have thought you’d be happy to see stem taken over by women

I think you’re conflating how I feel to facts. Fact is the 38.6% figure I quoted from your article. How I feel about it or the price of gasoline is notwithstanding.

Well I mean, do you read the links you provide?

While women now account for 57% of bachelor’s degrees across fields and 50% of bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering broadly (including social and behavioral sciences), they account for only 38% of bachelor’s degrees in traditional STEM fields (i.e., engineering, mathematics, computer science, and physical sciences; Table 1).

There’s where your 50% comes from. And as you can see, your link also aligns with the 38.6% previously mentioned.

See? Now was that hard? See how once you explained yourself we could clear up the confusion you were having? Nothing wrong with that, easy to be confused by the various terms that are being tossed around.

What are you even going on about? It literally says:

Women represent 57.3% of undergraduates but only 38.6% of STEM undergraduates

That means women are obtaining most of their degrees via non-STEM studies.

Women represent 52% of the college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.

And that is reflected in the study’s figures for employment as well.

I’d search for another but people shooting themselves in the foot amuses me to know end

Well let’s look over the score here. Someone has provided two different links to back up their argument and you’ve provided… Oh look, none. You’re making claims and pointing out things that clearly do not exist or are anecdotal. Nothing you have done in the last three comments indicates to anyone that any of us should take anything you have to say with any kind of value.

So I guess you are amused to know [sic] end, but a point or logical argument you have not made. But hey if you thinking you took the W here and that keeps you quiet, then good job you totally owned everyone here. Amazing wordsmithing.

Absolutely this. The reason AI defaults female into “female armor mode” is the same reason Excel has January February Maruary. Our spicy autocorrect overlords cannot extrapolate data in a direction that it’s training has no knowledge of.

I think they mean ID as store loyalty card and/or membership card. Not actual government issued ID.

Why does it look like he’s giving an invisible man a blow job?

Generally Overt Projection at it again.