“Black box” usually refers to both the Flight Data Recorder and the Cockpit Voice Recorder as a nebulous whole - some FDRs are also configured to record pilot mics as well but that’s not standard.

Oh, you’re trolling. Alright, fair enough. I gotta ask though, why troll in defense of the christians? They’re doing more than enough to destroy society without your helping out on their behalf by sowing nonsense like this.

A sarcastic thought experiment, then?

The image I used of the modern $20 is a counterfeit one. Real US currency does not have “MONEY” written on it in cartoon fonts (and also it lacks the eurion constellation). The color gradient is accurate, though.

That person has gone on to repeatedly double down on the position elsewhere in the comments, I’m afraid to say the hivemind was right on this one and they sure appear to be a whackdoodle that actually believes what they said there.

Did you mean Poe’s Law? That would imply you only made the claim about divine selection bias sarcastically, and we all just thought you were being serious.

Yeah but respect isn’t proof, and you’re the one that made the assertion requiring evidence here…

Neither do you.

Yes, but importantly you can’t demonstrate that it was a god that saved them. We’ll deal with the issue of which one it was once we get past that first problem.

That’s demonstrably false.

Er… Well, this seems like a great opportunity for you to prove that. Though I suspect you misunderstood the initial comment here.

This was more a comment on how the american aesthetic is so prolific that you still think of US currency being green despite it being long past the point where that was true, rather than a comment on what the colors actually are.

Modern US bills are really more of a white-blue with bruise yellow tones (except for the $1s) - but damn is the idea of the “american greenback” deeply rooted in the cultural identity!

(dunno if you’re being sarcastic)

It’s just a twee catchphrase christians came up with to say you can’t prove a negative. It’s not anything new, and it’s not actually contributing anything. It’s a core aspect of “burden of proof”, and this is just a way of shifting said burden to the people asking for evidence of the divine instead of leaving it on the people asserting that the divine exists in the first place.

I’m sorry, I’m not sure what your point is - yes it was a broadly impractical thing to do, that’s not in dispute.

I’m not entirely sure on the difference here, valve is selling them directly and by all the reporting we’ve seen, there aren’t going to be hardware restrictions on any of the models.

That’s a tradition with gaming systems, see the Navy’s playstation supercomputer!

Images that give me dysphoria…

We also maintain our own crawler (DuckDuckBot) and many indexes to support our results.

DDG uses a whole bunch of stuff, including feeding anonymized results through the bing API, but they’ve been largely driven by their own indexes for several years now after using Bing to bootstrap themselves.

Both examples are of disparaging comments directed at, you know, people. Veiled comments, sure, but pretty clearly directed at them nontheless.

Hot take, but: AI aren’t people. As a result, comments directed at them aren’t directed at people. Dogwhistles work because they’re comments directed at a group (of people), couched in language so as to imply they are directed at something else. Do you see the difference, they’re still directed at people? And clankers are, you know, not people?

Nobody’s defending dogwhistling, but you’re trying to imply that all negative comments that use “clanker” are dogwhistling (or somehow normalizing slurs), and you know darn well that that’s disingenuous.

The FBI said the information came from a “sensitive source with excellent access” and introduced the report as a warning about “extremist actors targeting law enforcement officers and federal facilities”.

Remember kids, look into securing your phone & only add people to your group chats that you have good reason to trust.

I wasn’t really referring to this post with that question - though it is relevant that leaving even an effectively unconstrained field like one that allows for the shrek script to be submitted would have seen me fired (if it had somehow passed QC, field sizes are one of the first things checked).

I was more curious about how different our experiences seem to be: you seem to imply a background where you’re expected to take the requirements as gospel with what you write based solely off that unless you’re personally invested, whereas in my experience engaging critically with the project is the single most important aspect of the development process, and not questioning potentially unwanted behavior leaves you open to firing (or criminal neglect if you’re dealing with medical PII, criminal records, etc…)

I’m quite genuinely interested in the different approach to development philosophy you present here.

Sincere question, are you not expected to clarify questionable business rules? I’ve never worked somewhere that leaving such an obvious issue like “unrestricted fields in a public-facing application” without getting it explicitly stated that that’s intended functionality wouldn’t have gotten me fired instantly.