I wrote the original reply as a joke. Clearly we're not playing by any sort of rules here. so worrying about the difference between digit and number is kinda funny. but then I thought it would be fun to actually drastically overthink it and be overly pedantic about what the question says.
So no, not bitter. I just have a very bad sense of humor and find dumb things entertaining.
And from what I can tell based on the callout at the end... This is a line from connector which is a compatibility layer that allows running Fabric mods on Neoforge.
Which means connector is going to be included in every stack trace, regardless of how related it is to the problem. It will be the one to raise the errors that couldn't be caught and managed... But AI will see connector being the one probably flagging the errors and be more likely to tag it as a "suspected" mod. I wouldn't be shocked to find out that AI has a tendency to shoot the messenger.
Now isn't the time to start being pedantic about rules.
edit: the prompt says "Circle the smallest number" and not "Circle the smallest number that appears below". What is the smallest number? 0 (at least by magnitude, negative numbers are just bigger numbers in the negative direction). So the prompt effectively says "Circle the zero"
If we're going to work off the "that appears below" assumption. then the smallest number is "1" and not 1, 2, and 3. So circling all 3 is incorrect.
If we're going to work off "that appears below, not including the categories" then the number to circle is 15 specifically. Not the "2." in front of it.
And if there is a "circle the category indicator number for the category that includes the smallest number below" implication, then it's truly just a bad question. Make it clear what you want.
There is a 0 in the bottom row. That is the smallest number. That's why these were all wrong. Also it says number singular and they circled all 3
Basically there aren't a lot of upsides and plenty of downsides
Lol.
"Foot means played on foot" is not the same as "every other sport must be played on horse". Football naming etymology has no impact on the naming of other sports. Chess is often played in a chair, not on foot, so it already is a non foot game. The lack of distinguishing may be to allow some chess players to optionally stand, or play from horseback if desired.
It DOES mean though that you are not allowed to play American football on horseback.
Sports are called "foot" ball because they involve running and aren't played on horses. And "ball" doesn't mean "sphere"
I don't watch association, Australian, rugby or American football, but you've bothered the etymologist in me with your nonsense suggestion.
"I tried to keylog myself and the system doesn't support keylogging." is a frustrating situation. Because it's neat from a security perspective and absolutely maddening from basically every other one.
For a second I thought "Maybe I saw it in a different community and TheRealKuni is just being picky about cross posts."
https://mander.xyz/post/46153727 - nope. In this community.
I had 6 (3x 27" 16:9 monitors), and then wound up with a 34" 21:9 ultra wide for my middle monitor. The side monitors stopped fitting on the triple monitor arm I had, but just barely. Enough that turning the monitors portrait made them fit again... so I'm pretty close to 10 right now.
A lot of animals have a sort of orange/green colorblindness I thought. Tigers being orange are actually well camouflaged for their prey. So orange looks amazing and isn't necessarily making them stand out.
This is an amazing picture though.
Desktops can be installed on any ubuntu release. you could install xfce on kubuntu, or kde on base ubuntu. And what DE/WM you are using doesn't matter in a quite a few scenarios, so it's not worth bringing up in the same way that I don't mention "Im using cachyOS niri wm"
I personally preferred xubuntu over kubuntu back in my *ubuntu days. etc etc. there are a lot of spins of ubuntu and when the only differentiator is DE (which you can also just install on base ubuntu), it's easier to just talk about them all as a single overaching entity/family ... ubuntu.
Talking about kubuntu inherently requires talking about KDE and ubuntu both, so people just skip the KDE discussion.
"Too many distro options" is already a complaint of a lot of non-linux users, so specifying every last spin can just drive people away.
Doesn't Ubuntu disable the root user out of the box and expect these actions to be performed via sudo/polkit. There is clearly a precedent for not needing a root password and being able to use your own user's password for these kinds of things. So it is a monumentally stupid idea to require the system-wide root password, but not one that is done by all of linux, and seems to be a decision made by your distro to not use the modern solution.
The fact is though, you're right and the pain point is that distros are still doing things the silly way.
If I can sudo apt install without requiring a password, I could generate a package that installs a custom sudoers config file that allows me to do anything, so "passwordless sudo, but just for apt" is potentially easily exploitable to gain full access. But that also still assumes A) you care and B) someone has access to your account anyway (at which point you may already have bigger problems)
It is interesting to me that at this point, because of Waydroid, the primary things keeping me from using a Linux phone are the same things keeping me from de-googling more of my current phone. When running LineageOS in the past, I couldn't reliably use RCS. Plenty of apps have issues with google's Play Integrity shenanigans.
Once I hit a point where Im ok with running a degoogled android, I'm basically ready for just going straight to Linux on phone.
RIP stack overflow
When they say repeated, they mean repeated for all time ever. Has someone ever used the phrase "how are you today?" ... yes. Has someone ever used the phrase "Pablo Picasso is my favorite brand of watermelon" before? Probably not. There are probably a lot of phrases with varying levels of "have existed before". That previous sentence might be an entirely original one.
But there are plenty of other sentences that can be conveyed that actually exchange information but don't generate new sentences. "So, what do you do for work?" "My favorite color is green" are almost certainly not new sentences.
A better breakdown of my sequence of numbers with the exact same values might be
1, 1, 2, 3,
1, 1, 4, 5,
1, 1, 6, 7,
1, 1, 8, 9
1, 1,
1, 1,
1
And now you have a repeated intro section per line and a sequence of totally unique numbers to that line.
"Most numbers are repeated" could mean that if you pick any given number from all the 21 numbers, it more than 50% likely to be a "1" you pick, just because 1 shows up so often.
"Most numbers are NOT repeated" could mean that if you if you pick any given number from the 9 unique numbers that show up in the set, you are 88% likely to pick a number that only exists once. But if any of these numbers were to be repeated even once, for any reason, that part stops being true.
In language, this just means that some phrases are going to be purely templates like "Hello" but some phrases are informational without being new: "I like turtles" and some are completely never happened before.
And depending on where your mental anchoring is, "we have a lot of repeated phrases in our lives, how could MOST sentences be new" or "repeating things would get old" ... that stat may be hard to believe or surprising, or very obvious.
"Hello, how are you?" has been repeated plenty. But after that things start to vary.
In the sequence of numbers 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9... Most numbers only appear once even though most numbers are a repeat.
If we assume "hi, how are you?" is "1" and most sentences are another number, we can see how even with common phrases being repeated frequently, most sentences may tend to be original.
(I've not done the math and I've definitely not studied language enough to say how dubious or accurate the claim is, you just piqued my interest and I started trying to rationalize it all)
I agree. But that's wrong because lying about current events is wrong. This is what I meant about framework. AI is a tool in that regard and not the problem. There is plenty of "real" journalism out there spreading lies too that I have problems with.
I'm fortunate I guess that most of the AI slop I dismiss is things more akin to baby panda sneezing scares mom panda. Where it doesn't REALLY matter if it's real because there are no consequences. It's either funny or it's not.
If someone were to say to you "why did the chicken cross the road?" You wouldn't demand that there is actually a chicken. You would accept it as a framework for a joke.
The same holds true for staged videos or AI or anything. Is the framework important to the point? A video claiming people can fly and using AI as proof... That's problematic. A staged bit where it would still be funny if it was just told verbally by a standup comedian? Who cares how real it is, the realness was never the point, the concept of the situation was.
Almost all comedy movies are just long staged bits.
And "how funny would this be if a standup comedian told this as a joke" vs "the context of this potentially actually happening is very important to the underlying humor of it" is a variable line for people. And that's ok. Unless someone is in danger (don't let someone jump off a cliff because ai said they can fly), other people's lines don't really affect you
Area of a Football Pitch
I also have a preview edition.
I moved HA from my server to a HA green to separate reliability (my server is a test bed and uptime isnt great, and home automation warrants better uptime than I was giving it).
The voice services don't work as well on the green directly, but I view it as part of the HA ecosystem and I want it running on the same hardware, but it seems very much like not a great option for that. And even on my own hardware, it still seems like it was a bit slower than I'd want and not always accurate. I definitely need a lot of tweaking (just like OP) to make it worth while.