Don’t feel like a dick for that! That again is management’s fault!
Remember that bagging your groceries used to be part of the service and part of the price, they eliminated that job to increase their profit margins!
At least around here Walmart still bags them for me, except they now have the cashier doing it instead of a dedicated employee for bagging.
Self serve gas was actually lower priced than full service back when the transition was happening, so there was actually a reason to do the work yourself.
If it had been the same price, only I have to do the work of pumping it, damn straight I would have felt the same.
In retrospect it was a bad deal because once full service went away entirely, so did the price difference, so I’m smarter now and wouldn’t use self checkout even if they gave a discount.
It’s possible to. Are they? Correct me if I’m wrong, but they’re not. They’re going after Microsoft and not Google.
Not that it makes any difference since Edge is just reskinned Chrome now anyway. If it was still it’s own thing I’d be rooting for Microsoft, at least up until they start to become bigger, then I’d turn on them.
Counterpoint: toaster 1 looks like Hitler. Use toaster 1.
Hey, deep fakes are awesome. They are a necessary step in the evolution of the technology that leads to holodecks.
I want holodecks, I bet you want holodecks, practically everyone wants holodecks, so we have to go through this stage of the tech to get there.
Lex Luthor is actually a super genius. And he can actually improve the world tremendously, such as in Red Son.
That said, Jean-Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg was still a more positive and likeable character than Elon Musk.
It’s not implying he can’t be bothered, but that the machine can do a better job.
…which may be true, depending on just how bad he is at writing. Like, I was just watching this classic the other day. If this guy writes like some of those people, the machine may infact be better.
That said, for most people it’s stupid, and the tech isn’t able to do a better job at expressing such things.
Yet.
Thank you, I understand better now. So in theory, if one of the other search engines chose to not have their crawler identify itself, it would be more difficult for them to be blocked.
I’m kind of curious to understand how they’re blocking other search engines. I was under the impression that search engines just viewed the same pages we do to search through, and the only way to ‘hide’ things from them was to not have them publicly available. Is this something that other search engines could choose to circumvent if they decided to?
Better to acknowledge it in a response. I prefer to do that myself if I’m wrong or something of that nature, post a reply acknowledging instead of trying to cover up that I was ever wrong in the first place.
They aren’t using it, no, but that doesn’t mean the scientific method can’t study what they do and come to an understanding of it - probably a better understanding of it than they have, since as you say, they aren’t using it. It’d just take a few decades of study probably to have a much stronger understanding of how it works.
My point is just that people draw this weird line between ‘science’ and ‘magic’ as though they were incompatible. In a world in which magic is real and useful, science can study it.
It irritates me that so many forums and media sites allow you to edit your posts at will. There’s one site I go to that I like very much - it has a 5 minute edit window, and after that, your post can no longer be edited. You can’t change what you said, pretend you never said things, etc, once you say something it remains. It would be nice if more sites were like that. Or at least, if you edit/delete something, for there to be an option to check the history to see what it used to be, so if you try to delete some comment you made people can still check it. Whether it’s informational, or it’s because you’re trying to hide something you said that you realize was actually super shitty and people are getting angry at you for it, I prefer things to stick.
Their reality doesn’t defy understanding by the scientific process. It has reliable, repeatable results, and therefore can be studied and empirically catalogued. The only way something could not be studied by science is if it’s totally random, if actions do not correlate, even slightly, with results. Of course, such behavior would make it completely useless as a tool, because one could never get desired results from it. Magic in the setting is very reliable and repatable, and as long as you do it right, results can be studied, so it’s easily catalogued by the scientific method.
This is why PS3 is the last PlayStation that I owned, and I didn’t even buy it retail.
After they discontinued the backwards compatible model I sought out and bought one secondhand, and swore never again to buy a PlayStation product unless they release one on which I can play all my PlayStation games all the way back to 1.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Not ‘to grant them greater control’ or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.
Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.
These changes could be applied retroactively; this isn’t like creating an ex post facto law and then jailing people for breaking a law that didn’t exist at the time of the event.
How about reword it slightly: it must be available for purchase if you want to use IP law to prevent others from distributing it.
Too fucking bad? The purpose of IP was to give the public access to novel ideas and art, not to increase the control creators had over it.
If they raise the prices in those countries they would make less money because volume of subscribers would go down enough for total income to decrease.
If they lowered the price in the US, they would make less money because the subscribers they would gain would not be enough to offset the reduced income from each.
That’s it, it has nothing to do with operating costs or fairness, it’s just a question of what price point they believe will make them the most money in a given market.
It’s better if the police budget is spent on replacing tires rather than purchasing even more unnecessary surplus military equipment which they will then try to justify using.