cataphract

You are missing the point. You're allowed to think highly or lowly of whomever, for whatever reason. That's your business (freedom of thought). It's more problematic when you express, overtly or not, such low opinion, as you will cause resentment. And there is the risk that the mere request is seen as a "correction". In our society, it's not generally polite for adults to correct other adults' speech.

I would also take issue with reasonableness of the request. You concede it does not offend you, and that it's merely a preference. I also have a myriad of preferences about speech: the intonation, accent, the grammatical constructions, the words, etc. To ask of other people, whom I don't even know intimately, to match my preferences is something else altogether. It's to impose my preferences over that person's dialect or ideolect, which is also rightly frowned upon.

He, I never really got a satisfactory explanation as to why she started (I think it some objections to the meat industry), and or to why she changed her mind. It's certainly more convenient, since vegetarian options in traditional restaurants are basically nonexistent. But the trigger was a desire to sample the local cuisine when travelling. Started with fish, then birds, then, in Valencia, where it's traditional in paella, rabbit.

I'm glad it works for you. I've rarely tasted a vegetarian dish I really liked except maybe chili made with granulated soy protein rather than minced meat.

My girlfriend was vegetarian for many years, and she put the effort to make tasty dishes (tofu, specifically, always had some marinade). Once she started eating meat again though (and we're talking only white meat like chicken, rabbit, duck, not pork/beef), she almost never eats a vegetarian dish.

Yes, the article covers this (mentions the std::variant). This makes it a closed set though. Other differences is that your Event here is as big your biggest event type, and it doesn't go through normal inheritance mechanisms. With polymorphic you could just have an abstract Event and implement your subclasses normally.

A way to see it is some sort of type-erasure over destruction and copy-construction (plus another corner case for mismatched allocators).

The constructor of polymorphics captures the type of the subclass during its constructor (they didn't make the same mistake as with shared_ptr of giving it a pointer constructor, like the UB in case the destructor is not virtual in Base *b; shared_ptr<Base> sp{b}). With this, it can instantiate a template (a control block) where the subclass is known.

Around Lisbon, it's usually stewed with red wine and tomato and spices (coelho à caçador). It can also be fried or grilled but I rarely see it cooked that way.

It's the kind of meat that is, generally speaking, better prepared in more rustic versions as you move inland, though -- see e.g. [1], where it's cooked in clay, together with kidneys, heart, liver, and the head.

[1]: https://maps.app.goo.gl/imK78soKt6ruLNZH6

That really doesn't speak to the usefulness of the distinction. To the extent that workers, as a whole, have common goals (like capturing a bigger share of the productivity gains, for instance), it probably make sense to organize as a single group to pursue those goals.

The right also organizes humans into us-vs-them: the natives versus the immigrants, the faithful versus the infidels, and so on. Whether those make sense depends only on the values, way of living or material conditions you want to protect and whether the other group is a menace to them.

Can't they just do it with personalized discounts and other loyalty programs? That's what everyone's doing around here.

You mean like pharmaceutical companies refusing to supply chemicals for lethal injection?

Really depends on the kind of upbringing of the child. In Mongolia 5 year olds are teaching their younger siblings how to ride a reindeer.

Only the AI labs are really interested in closed models. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, ... they'd rather go back to doing stock buybacks and being ridiculously profitable rather than raising capital for all this research and datacenters. They only do it because they think they have to.

I have both as well. Floaters are mildly annoying, but at least when you lie in bed at night you don't see them in the dark.

In every AI-written post, we have the script: some top post complaining it's AI-written, someone cluelessly saying they don't see it, and another person pointing out the claudisms. Sometimes someone posts a link to pangram.

I think we need the moderation team to set up some policy. In which direction idk.

Right, SO was always better at answering beginner questions then advanced ones, except if the complex question had a broad appeal. Part of it is because the format is not good for asking a context-heavy question. Another part because you were dependent on the pool of people answering, and the more niched the question was (using a library not very popular, for instance) or the more expertise it required, the less likely you were to find someone.

I appreciate the correction. Although it should be said that modern implementations tend to opt to assume that UB never happens.

Undefined behavior is not the same as implementation-defined or unspecified behavior. A program with undefined behavior is by definition an incorrect program. But there are cases where the spec actually gives some margin to the implementation. Programs relying on the choices of the implementation may be correct, even if non-portable.

Just from the subtitle, you can already tell it's likely AI-generated. Maybe you're lucky enough not to be exposed to claude/codex output your whole working day.

I don't think that's the lesson. What I take from that is that people adapt to norms and incentives they have.

Despite all the talk about "academic integrity" and whatnot, very rarely were there punishments for people who cheated. For every professor that wrote FRAUD in the grade sheet and escalated to the Disciplinary Committee, there were 100 that turned a blind eye or at most confiscated a paper being passed around when the exam was being administered. This hypocrisy irked me much more than the cheating itself, in which I didn't partake mostly because 1) I thought it was kind of beneath me, something only mediocre students did (which I came to realize was not really true) and 2) I didn't care that much about the grade.

Caffeine withdrawal symptoms don't last more than 1-2 weeks. And we're talking about headaches, feeling sluggish... not dying, like other drugs.

That's a stretched interpretation. The first sentence says the interval does not exceed 15 minutes. The most natural way to read the last sentence is that the competition rules state how long the half-time is under those parameters (i.e., the rules can state that the interval is 10 minutes, but not 1 hour); likewise, the referee can allow the competition organizers to change the duration of the interval -- the competition rules notwithstanding --, but still within the parameters of the 1st sentence.

Producing the desired output is the purpose of the program, but it's not the only consideration: there's performance, maintainability, security, and so on.

So it's OK if FIFA breaks the rules of the game "only in the final"? (yes, I know FIFA says they didn't but their reading of Law 7.2 is not plausible)

One of the least corrupt countries, whose attorney general had secret meetings with Infantino when in charge of an investigation of corruption in FIFA.

Yes, which maybe is a disadvantage because it limits the speed I read to the speed I can articulate the words in my head. But most of the time I'm not consciously aware of it, just like people who go one step further and move their lips are usually not aware (I assume).

The post doesn't call for the sympathy for the publishers, so I'm not sure what you're responding to.

What about when you're reading? You don't have a voice in your head saying the words?

It's not a small fine. It's much more than what each title could be bought for in the market.

> But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as long as they planned to eventually deleted them afterwards)

The court says otherwise.

> Such piracy of otherwise available copies is inherently, irredeemably infringing even if the pirated copies are immediately used for the transformative use and immediately discarded.

Then it says it doesn't need to decide on that basis because they kept it not just for training LLMs, but also for building a central library. Which seems a bit ridiculous, because the sole purpose of the central library is to train LLMs.

It surely is, but that doesn't change the fact that many cases are not about distribution and the harm is frequently more of a legal fiction, unless by harm you mean something other than suffering inflicted on the victims. I don't necessarily think it's wrong for society to ban certain acts on purely moral grounds (another example: incest between siblings), but let's not pretend it's something else going on.

> Non-consented distribution of sexual images (eg: revenge porn) is also a crime.

There is very compelling empirical evidence that this causes actual harm (suicide ideation in a very big fraction of the victims), even if it is fictional, so here there is no question about the harm.

Like when Google got tired of handling geofencing warrants.

> If you purchased a piece of land and that wasn't recorded in the registry, you are SOL because registration is what conveys title.

Sort of. The registration is what provides opposability against third parties. But between buyer and seller, the transfer of ownership happens by the contract itself. You'll have a harder time against creditors of the seller placing liens on the property, or other people claiming to be owners (e.g. if they bought the foreclosed property); how hard a time depends on the country.

And there may be still be encumbrances/claims to the property that are not subjection to registration like adverse possession or rental agreements that can be asserted against the buyer and for which the buyer's only option is to sue to the seller.