TFW you have to respect the fact we fundamentally aren’t suited to comfortably sit around all day

That’s not really how this works

I don’t hate the french I just gotta free up some space by deleting the language pack :(

You don’t know what the word “application” is lol

Y’know… I would suggest a decent proof of FSD being worthless garbage is the fact you’d think a car which can drive itself should probably be able to automatically stop itself.

Even when under manual control the car should be able to go “ah shit this aint the road anymore, those are some trees and a fence I’m headed towards way too fast” and try to stop and perform risk mitigating maneuvers.

After that we can talk about whether the car might be able to drive itself.

Blah blah blah nobody takes this bullshit seriously and you come off as a raving lunatic on a personal level.

The better analogy is that people live in houses and houses have addresses, and I can use an address to find someone’s house.

Whether the pointed data by the pointer is valid or not is… not the point. In all languages I can think of, dereferencing an invalid pointer like a pointer to the wrong address per the type and alignment is never valid. Your analogy does not improve on historical analogies and it is wrong.

Nope, can’t see it at all.

You can also just mark a guideline using a rope tied to a pole and then drive the line painters per the guidelines.

First you can work on not being a loser

This is just a more complex version of shared dictionary compression which I think one of the web compression algorithms does. Stupid LLM fuckers at it again with dumb garbage.

It should be mentioned that nobody is allowed to decide to have the opinion that “since medication x is removed, we should advocate for the removal of more popular medication y”

So remember, you fight for both medications as an individual. This article only points out that it makes no sense to attempt to justify excluding care for transgender people. Don’t make it about excluding care from your “enemy” or “other” in retaliation if you can help it.

Probably depends on the kid. In the right house with the right mindset I bet parents could use first names. Otherwise it will probably be a special word to all of them, maybe something the kid calls them one day that sticks.

Maybe the parents will look to the internet or peers for answers and get stuff like “guardian” “my other parent” etc but ultimately the real question you should ask is how a child addresses their two same-gendered parents, maybe there’s something to contexutalize there.

English is not “constructed” nor does its development to the point reflect high levels of intent like someone sitting down and deciding they decide what the best language is.

If you suppose a multiple choice test MUST ONLY have one correct answer:

1. Eliminate duplicate 25% answers

2. You are left with 60% and 50% as potential answers to this question.

3. C is the answer

If you were to actually select an answer at random to this question while believing the above, you would have a 50% chance of answering 25%.

It is obvious to postulate that: for all multiple choice questions with no duplicate answers, there is a 25% chance of selecting the correct answer.

However as you can see, in order to integrate the answer being C with the question itself, we have to destroy the constraints of the solution and treat the duplicate 25% answers as one sum correct answer.

Do you choose to see the multiple choice answer space as an expression of the infinite space of potential free form answers? Was the answer to the question itself an expression of multiple choice probability or was it the answer from the free form answer space condensed into the multiple choice answer space?

The question demonstrates arriving at different answers between inductive and deductive reasoning. The answer depends on whether we are taking the answers and working backwards or taking the question and working forwards. The question itself forces the inductive reasoning strategy to falter at the duplicate answers, leading to deductive reasoning being the remaining strategy. Some may choose to say “there is no answer” in the presence of needing to answer a question that only has an answer because we are forced to pick one option, and otherwise would be invalid. Some may choose to point out it is obviously a paradox.

For anyone who can’t read that many words at once: URI means identifier and URL means locator.

Matrix does not mix the roles of its URIs beyond the ability to attempt to reach that homeserver through NOT ONLY DNS but also through routing between homeservers. Matrix, unlike this garbage, actually wants to support ephemeral homeservers and such as well.

Sadly these web technology fucks cannot get their heads even a centimeter further towards the exit of their anus to even risk beginning to care about how garbage their architectures are.

Matrix was influenced by the traditional URI schema approach however they also used an inverted URI to have the most significant segment be the first segmont. This is why it has a prepended segment followed by a : and then a URL.

The relationship the URI is describing is homeserver owns user and traditionally we might go homeserver:user I’d argue it is obvious to just invert that into user:homeserver. See Java, dotnet, etc reverse dns naming conventions.

A matrix room is not at a URI, it is on every homeserver that participates in the room. I am not talking about Lemmy and its garbage entirely incorrectly semantic URI scheme. Matrix rooms are globally uniquely identified, and so the room URI only describes the idea of the resource of the room. room:homeserver.

The prefixes are an obvious and neccesary evil for parsing them out of unstructured text. A requirement for most users.

ActivityPub and related went “fuck everything, fuck reason, the web is fucking amazing” and came up with their own flavor of stupidity. Emails use an ancient first attempt at a URL. A URL. What does the URL do? It is explicitly intended to tell you which server to contact. People are going “yeah but email!1!!” entirely moronically ignoring historical context.

They aren’t URLs they are URI schemas. A URL is a segment of the URI schema.

1. They use a service to send the text notification rather than directly texting a number, this inserts the original header

2. They are aware phone screens are not wide and text wrapping can be weird. They thus awkwardly split a normal message across a few lines manually as well as writing too much on one line.

3. Nobody tried to emulate a script. She copy and pasted some shit off the appointment info.

Oh. But a road is famously cheap.