Edit: I buried the lede. I'm not a fan of throwing inexperienced celebrities/personalities into presidency, but there's merit to having entertainers step into political positions. Good entertainers feel the pulse of their audience, determine what they want, and adapt to provide that. In politics, that sounds like being a spineless flip flop, but I doubt anyone would say that was the characteristic of Robin Williams' performances or Jon Stewart's work. They both chose to provide a benefit to the audience with deep laughter. Stewart took the benefit a step further with his 9/11 work.
Re: "ignoring that one president". Look at the artistic works of these entertainers-turned-politicians. I theorize you can determine their political leanings from the diversity of their performances. Do they have a wide range of characters, where they can observe other people, take feedback, and present something that feels natural each time? I bet that diversity is rooted in a significant amount of empathy to understand other groups. Our do they play the same tough guy over and over, rigidly, as they project their ideal image? Probably gonna be someone that expects conformity and conservation of the status quo.
It's obviously not a strict rule. De Niro, Eastwood, Pesci, and Wayne all played tough guys, but the second two only play tough guys. Reagan focused on westerns, which always carry a certain tough guy trope. Similarly, Trump played a vicious business mastermind. That's it. People latched onto his TV personality all the same. Obviously, what we see is he continues to prove he was never as successful as he projects. I'll never understand why anyone thought a country, a society should be run like a business. Businesses want profit. The profit is always loaded towards upper management. They don't generously reward the bottom tiers for fun. They cut them, if anything. Getting cut by your own government is an insane thing to indirectly desire, but I guess these voters always believed it was other people, the right people, that would get hurt. Not the.
If something is broken, it's probably clearly broken. That just wastes someone's time later down the line, I guess. But the relabeled RAM is fucked. That is just going to end up in some other end user's hands and give them a diagnostic nightmare along with, most likely misattributed hate towards ebay or whatever resale method moves that stick from Amazon scraps to the end user's build.
So no, I cannot agree this is some harmless fuck-you to corporate overlords. This will eventually fuck over someone innocent.
Mid-adult deaths dragged down the average. Child deaths really dragged down the average. The point is that the interpretation of "40 year life expectancy" is caused by misunderstanding averages, not from some massively inferior physiology of prior humans. Yes, more things readily killed you, but it wasn't a mid-life ticking time bomb. Excluding infant death bumps expectancy up around 10-20 years
I'm thinking it's about consistency. 10kts 10% of the time vs average 150kts 100% of the time (the math is a little off but we're in hypothetical estimates already)
I wasn't aware of that equality=matriarchy perception. I haven't dove into the actual human ancient Greeks much, so thanks for that added info for me to seek out at some point. I had some inkling after finding out about the mythological Amazons
Did they build it though? Sounds like vibe-coding to me
For all my gripes with AI/LLM and stolen valor-type misrepresentation, I'm not going to put too many asterisks on someone's personal project. Especially when it exposes shady corporate practice. It doesn't seem like they were professionally hired to create this app. There's plenty of tinkerers I follow that phone a friend to get a project back on track.
But I have no idea what his day job is, being an AI Strategist
You don't have to learn about it because the information is definitively trivial, in that it has no bearing on your life, despite your schooling probably giving you tests on it. However, it is useful to know because it's still part of pop culture. The stories vary because 1. It was written a long time ago, 2. It's been translated and intentionally mistranslated/altered/rewritten for social engineering reasons, and 3. It never happened. Let me throw out a disclaimer: this is not chatgpt, I just used Assassin's Creed Odyssey as a springboard into actually seeing what the whole story was. As a never-evil player, I felt bad doing the monster hunts, especially for Medusa.
Medusa was either very sexy or very monstrous. Maybe she was sexy, then became monstrous at the time of her serpentine perm. The unclear appearance comes from trying to reconcile three parts of the story: Zeus raped her so she was probably sexy, Athena punished her for it with the snake hair/stone vision thing and might have wanted her to go unloved, and Perseus has to be heroic so killing a sleeping beauty would be evil. Zeus and Medusa's offspring was born upon the beheading, as Pegasus (yes, the flying horse) burst from her corpse. So sometimes she's a centaur, too.
So where does it fall in pop culture? Well, some people like to use "Medusa" as an insult to some types women being reclusive, being ugly, or being ruthless. But on the other hand, some groups of (primarily) women have taken her image as a powerful symbol to represent something from their past, a part of the myth that is present in all retellings: sexual assault. Greek myths love revolving around warriors slaying beasts, but you can argue she wasn't a beast and was simply living in a distant place, wishing to be left alone. Perseus went after her anyway. There's very real parallels here with SA, misogyny, violating consent, and other such unfair interactions.
But again, this is all based on mythology, not historical facts. The meaning has been changed a thousand times and will be changed until the end of humankind.
Anyway, on a related note, something I was totally unaware of until a few years ago, was that the Amazon women were a Greek myth. It had nothing to do with South America. The myth existed without knowledge of that rainforest because they're totally unrelated. Amazon women were just a warrior group in the mythology. Apparently, when Europeans explored the area and found tall women, they figured it must be the Amazonians. That sounds like a bit of a normal total fuck up by the Europeans, on par with Columbus thinking he landed in India, maybe even with a cool respectful undertone ([X] doubt), but inr reality, the Amazons failed in nearly every tale. They were never meant to be a feminine icon. They failed because they were written to claim men had greater success in all feats.
Or at least that's one interpretation. Or one interpretation of the latest set of rewrites.
I feel like we're the only ones that expect "all-knowing information sources" should be more writing seriously than these edgelord-level rizzy chatbots are, and yet, here they are, blatantly proving they are chatbots that should not be blindly trusted as authoritative sources of knowledge.
My closest examples are banded to existing street light poles with some ~12ga stainless hose clamps, maybe 10ft up. Private parking lot security. I'm guessing your example (like the thumbnail?) is the choice for a town police dept or housing dev that can't attach to street lights
Its not unreasonable for an anti-crime camera manufacturer to expect criminals to paint cameras. It's a movie trope. But anyway, sure would be nice to see some compilation of attack attempts to see what sticks
Americans shouldn't starve in such a wealthy nation, but there's just not enough money here. Do not. Touch. The defense war budget. Such a shame, homeless veterans and all that
I doubt the lenses are glass, which means the solvents in spray paint will be, effectively, impossible to clean off without damaging the lens in the process. I doubt they have a maintenance team with such finesse as opposed to one that just replaces the device, just every other US support service.
I will always be amazed by the drive to cross oceans, especially in the arctic where death seems so much more likely. We still lose ships to the sea. How many additional people died simply from being off in their guessed direction by a few degrees? How many were lost at sea due to weather or not enough supplies? How many people does it take to reach and establish a viable colony? How bad did conditions have to get in the starting colony for a hundred people to say "alright, I'm gonna head out" and raft across the the unending horizon, head out for days, probably still see the land they left, still not see land ahead, and continue? Did they even have a choice by then or was it driven by the current?
I scream, for I do not know. Thank you for coming to me Ted questionnaire
I'm not in IT and only have tangential knowledge, but I would think something like corporate internet control would work for this. I know my company has blanket access restrictions with the ability to modify them on an individual basis. But I haven't the slightest idea how to implement that. I think all of my company device data goes through a tunnel.
Edit: I buried the lede. I'm not a fan of throwing inexperienced celebrities/personalities into presidency, but there's merit to having entertainers step into political positions. Good entertainers feel the pulse of their audience, determine what they want, and adapt to provide that. In politics, that sounds like being a spineless flip flop, but I doubt anyone would say that was the characteristic of Robin Williams' performances or Jon Stewart's work. They both chose to provide a benefit to the audience with deep laughter. Stewart took the benefit a step further with his 9/11 work.
Re: "ignoring that one president". Look at the artistic works of these entertainers-turned-politicians. I theorize you can determine their political leanings from the diversity of their performances. Do they have a wide range of characters, where they can observe other people, take feedback, and present something that feels natural each time? I bet that diversity is rooted in a significant amount of empathy to understand other groups. Our do they play the same tough guy over and over, rigidly, as they project their ideal image? Probably gonna be someone that expects conformity and conservation of the status quo.
It's obviously not a strict rule. De Niro, Eastwood, Pesci, and Wayne all played tough guys, but the second two only play tough guys. Reagan focused on westerns, which always carry a certain tough guy trope. Similarly, Trump played a vicious business mastermind. That's it. People latched onto his TV personality all the same. Obviously, what we see is he continues to prove he was never as successful as he projects. I'll never understand why anyone thought a country, a society should be run like a business. Businesses want profit. The profit is always loaded towards upper management. They don't generously reward the bottom tiers for fun. They cut them, if anything. Getting cut by your own government is an insane thing to indirectly desire, but I guess these voters always believed it was other people, the right people, that would get hurt. Not the.