It is most likely this. OP is one of the unfortunate people that just cannot use marijuana safely due to his biology. If you have cannabinoid hyperemesis, best to stay away from weed because the constant nausea/vomiting can lead to unintentional weight loss and a lot of other physical problems that are no fun.

Hasn’t this always been a possibility? People could always record their screen or take screenshots during meetings or whatever

Maybe the problem is a lot of their marketing relies on the dominance of their search engine (ie sponsored search results, and ads based on user searches, as well as tracking user web usage via their search click throughs and other cookies). If open ai’s products become the go to for questions and basic searches, they will eventually be able to use that dominance to include marketing results in their answers. I think this threat is why they want to try to compete with them to be able to offer an alternative. Because it doesn’t actually have to be better than chat gpt. It just has to be similar enough for people to continue using Google rather than change their habits to use chatgpt, or Microsoft’s implementations of it. Especially with windows 11 where copilot (basically Microsoft rebrand of chatgpt) is built in and you can use it from the task bar. That ease of use may steadily decrease people’s reliance on Google search, which will eventually hurt their ability to sell targeted ads.

The pain is a lesser problem than getting chronic kidney infections. If you know the stones are the cause, you need to see a urologist to figure out a solution. Recurring inflammation from the stones and infections can cause more and more problems as you age, and may potentially affect your renal function down the line.

GPT is just trying to get a good tip.

I have a question about rigid curriculums. This is mostly for high school. Many of my teachers had curriculums and syllabi that they had been using for years and kept them basically the same, and then there were the AP classes where the curriculum was determined by the AP exam. I felt that I learned really well in AP classes and we would get through much more advanced material in the AP classes than in others. And I also felt that the teachers who had developed somewhat fixed curriculums from experience taught much more efficiently than those who hadn’t. It never felt like the teachers were changing their curriculum for each class whether it was an AP class or not because most had their curriculums kind of figured out over the course of teaching for many years. And most of the teachers I had in high school were excellent. So my question is, why is it believed that rigid curriculums don’t work? Because in my schooling experience, whether the rigid curriculum was developed by the individual teacher or by an external organization (like AP), the class seemed to benefit from having fixed goals for the year.

10/10 write up

Most programming (simple tasks, scripting data analysis, most common web apps, basic automation) is about as difficult as doing your own plumbing (which likely includes fixing a faucet or doing other minor tasks around the house). But just like in any profession, the “professionals” are able to handle the complex tasks that others can’t/don’t want to do. For plumbers that means building the whole home systems to maintain proper pressure/temperature at every outlet, suitable for whatever climate the home is built in, or in commercial settings where the systems are much larger and more complicated.

Ask a professional plumber which they find more taxing: being bent into awkward spaces on their hands and knees all day, or sitting at a desk thinking hard about a problem someone has likely already solved.

Not sure what you’re referring to, but Microsoft has always had security incidents because they make the platform(s) that almost everyone uses, and so is commonly the target for malicious actors. This has been the case with Microsoft as long as Windows has been the dominant OS which is since the 90s. Not sure what hiring people outside of the US has to do with this.

Don’t know if it’s a low service state. They have pretty strong welfare programs, despite what Republicans will have you believe. Their public education is ranked pretty similarly to California for K-12, if not better depending on the specific list. Their public universities are among the best in the country. Their hospitals are the best in the country.

The biggest drawback is that their legislators think they can practice medicine without having the relevant qualifications. But Californian medical laws and viewpoints have their own drawbacks. Let’s not forget, before covid, anti-vaxers were primarily associated with crunchy liberal moms refusing to vaccinate their children. California was among the first to have a resurgence of measles. CA is also a state trying to obfuscate medical roles by allowing advanced practitioners (NPs and PAs) to practice independently (without a surprising DO or MD), as well as allowing naturopaths to identify themselves as physicians. While it’s easier to see the harms of Texas’s medical laws right now, California has had it’s fair share of negative impact on it’s populous.

A lot of the Republican rhetoric is empty, meaningless, and far from the truth. This is what makes Republican politics so frustrating. They say one thing, want something else, and do something entirely different. As a liberal it makes it difficult to engage in a meaningful conversation with them. But this sort of state comparison based on broad generalizations also increases the divide, while being very unhelpful.

The summation starts at n=0 and goes up to n=inf. I think that’s pretty standard

Awesome thanks!

Do you know how motherboards split up this 1amp spec? Does each USB port on a motherboard have 1amp, or do they often end up sharing?

I’ve actually found that I cannot add too many more ports without it being a powered USB hub. Expanding 3-4 is fine, but if you’re trying to add on like 10-15, it won’t work unless the hub is powered.

All of that interest is from people making computers, or people who manage security. Not from people that use computers as part of their life/work (in contrast to those who’s work is entirely about the computer itself). From a usability standpoint, this type of sandboxing for every app is cumbersome and all it leads to is users finding unsafe work arounds. I used to be able to use my android phone much more as a regular computer than I can now. And I wanted to make a simple app for myself to allow me to automatically copy and catalog photos from my cameras sd card to an external HDD, and I literally cannot do this without jumping through a million permissions and API hoops on Android even though I never plan on publishing this app for others to use. It became such a pain to figure out how to get access to the folders I would need, I just gave up on the entire project. I essentially needed a tool to systematically copy and rename files, and it’s nearly impossible because of these nonsensical policies.

Even if they aren’t earning income, they should be able to show they had a product/prototype actually built with the patent before the company they’re using developed their product. That way legitimate patent holders who weren’t able to monetize their technology but had a working prototype will still be able to protect their patents. So many times, patent trolls hold patents to “ideas” rather than working inventions with prototypes.

Sure except that we already have computers where every app uses the same folder structure, just with some files/folders protected with elevated permissions that aren’t accessible to every app. We already have a solution that works and every desktop OS uses. Why would mobile go for a solution that isn’t actually usable?

Yeah I guess the employer could choose not to employ them but I don’t think they have to not employ them.

I think someone who’s committed murder is a perfect analogy actually. For people who serve their time or whatever after committing murder, there’s no legal standing for not employing them. You might feel uncomfortable as their coworker, which is totally valid. You may also believe that there is no forgiveness or second chances after committing certain crimes like rape and murder. But unless the employer has a good reason why an ex-murderer cannot perform their work duties or is currently doing illegal things at work, I don’t think they can not hire them just based off of that.

I’m not sure what you consider to be people on the ground, but one would argue the people publishing peer reviewed research in the field have dedicated a significant part of their lives to that topic and are as “on the ground” as possible when it comes to their area of expertise.