howenterprisey

Yeah, wikipedia has its own user script system, and that was what was disabled.

In that case their pay would be 20% less than market rate because the percent change is based on market rate, not the new value.

> This appears to be an AI-generated draft with severe hallucination problems bordering on WP:HOAX. For one, it calls it the "Margo Largo Accord" -- a name that is not and never was real. The draft also claims the accord was already introduced, and goes into detail about its supposed contents, effects, and reactions to it; the problem is, no actual accord was introduced at the time (or now), so pretty much all of that is made up. The sourcing gives an impression of WP:SIGCOV [significant coverage] but almost all of it appears to be background information about various topics that aren't the accord.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio..., the discussion that concluded with the article's deletion

In the anime fan subbing community (which this document is likely from), it's very common to hate on VLC for a variety of imagined (and occasionally real but marginal) issues.

Two different systems; on the mod side there are two different UIs (one to set each) as well. Yeah it's weird.

That's what saying "noticed with Gen Z" means.

Reply to edit: generations are sequential; if you've noticed something with one generation it means that you're not accusing the prior generations of the same thing, otherwise you would've used different wording.

You can just as easily add context to the first example or skip the wrapping in the second.

I interpret the sense of "literally" here in the opposite way, i.e. without it the sentence may be taken to mean that the books metaphorically stop mid-sentence, but with it, they're saying that it's non-metaphorical and they really do. It would be bizarre wording otherwise.

Since my work is vaguely related to superconductors, I saw this comment and was excited to dig into all the errors in the article, but actually couldn't find any in the parts discussing the superconductors specifically. (I don't know data centers and can't comment on that bit.) 77 K is indeed an appropriate temperature for LN2 coolant for high-temperature superconductors like they're using. What errors did you see?

Maybe Geoguessr players would be good at identifying them as well?

Am I to interpret https://gist.github.com/jacobkahn/bd77c69d34040a9e9b10d56baa... as it making a test that only asserts false and saying that the test exercises the function in question?

Edit: I misunderstood what was being tested; the test is correct.

Okay, but now that's an unfalsifiable statement. What makes you think the burners are tied to the well-known accounts?

My thesis is that Wikipedianon's comment implies Wikipedia editors (specifically, "well-known" editors and "admins") doxx each other all the time, but that's hilariously wrong. Doxxing mostly comes from assholes outside the community, such as those who post on Wikipediocracy.

Yes, on-project doxxing gets OS'd but it also results in discussions and bans which can be reviewed. And from those you can easily determine that it's truly rare.

When I said to go to the forums, that was unfortunately unclear wording; I meant it's trivial to verify that Beeblebrox didn't doxx anyone in his postings.

When I said anyone can verify it, I meant it; go make an account on wikipediocracy, go to the "Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing" forums, and go through the posts by that user.

Quite to the contrary, it's a very transparent organization because edit histories are public. It would be trivial to link to any instances of doxxing on the project, unless they don't exist, which they don't. Wikipediocracy doesn't count when talking about Wikipedia doxxing.

Hi. I was an arbitrator who voted to suspend that arbitrator. There was no doxxing involved, which anyone can verify. Barely anything else in your comment is correct either. Doxxing is an issue but from where I sit it's much worse from people outside Wikipedia.

You're just explaining what the word "nondeterministic" means when you put it before "finite automaton", which doesn't have much to do with what "nondeterministic" means in other places.

The requirement is not to be standalone end-user distributable, the requirement is that it be somehow possible for an end user to set it up, which is a lot easier, unless the developers don't even know how to set up the backend. But that's a low bar still.

My current phone actually has this (ROG 9) and it's really nice! I had to put my phone in a cupholder recently and the side charging port saved me from having to balance it on the charging cable. (It also has a headphone jack.)

I think "supposed to" is overstating it given that I've only ever seen it used by this one publication. To boot, I wouldn't pronounce the word they use it for, coordination, (in context, "piloting it demanded constant coordination") with a syllable break, either.

I like reading the system prompt because I feel it would have to be human-written for sure, which is something I can never be sure of for all other text on the Internet. Or maybe not!

You're completely right, for what it's worth, and I appreciated the wordplay.

HTS was available in ceramic form, but ceramics sorta suck to work with. So potential users had to wait for people to make them into wires, which was apparently a fat pain in the ass, and then for that technology to be commercialized, all of which took until the 2010s.

Certainly the plasma could melt the wall if it were allowed to touch it, but by shaping the magnetic fields that confine the plasma, the plasma can be made to stay away from the wall (not perfectly, but well enough). This is how many fusion experiments operate today. The walls are made of tungsten and other materials that can handle heat, so even if (when) the plasma hits the wall, the melting isn't too severe.

Some "plasma touches wall" events are more severe than others. Sometimes it's even intentional. A "limited" plasma deliberately touches a part of the wall called the "limiter", and the limiter is used to bound the shape of the plasma. (Contrast with a "diverted" plasma; search both terms for more details.) On the other hand, one type of event where it's very much unintentional is called a vertical displacement event, in which the plasma, well, vertically displaces itself until it hits a wall and melts it. These suck but are planned for and handled.

If you're counting neutrons in that "energy flux", they'll just go through the wall (mostly); this is how tokamaks are supposed to make electricity, ie the neutrons go through the wall and hit a "blanket" that's much better at absorbing neutrons, and the blanket will heat up and the heat will be converted to electricity.

I don't need high school level ideas, though. If people do, that's good for them, but I haven't met any. And if the quality of the ideas is going to improve in future years, that's good too, but also not demonstrated here.

The argument that density puts stress on people to move _towards_ that density seems to me to have the direction of causation reversed. People look at prices when they move, not density.

Silly question, but on that last point, why? (I can't imagine, but I'm unimaginative.)

That's a pure strawman and unrelated to what everyone else is talking about.

up 30 min before train leaves, phone in bed for 10-15 min, change clothes (staged on top of dresser to save time), brush teeth, [optional if time, pack snacks], [optional if needed, start dishwasher and/or washing machine], rush to train station (takes 6-12 min depending on fast I go, which in turn depends on how much time I wasted on my phone in bed)

certainly works for me. perhaps someday I'll have a more productive one, but I like how this one maximizes sleep and phone usage.

Looking past the condescending "bright-eyed and bushy-tailed" description and the unfounded assertion that the number of years spent looking at something or a person's age put a ceiling on how informed they can be about it, she does actually discuss the unblockables right there in the middle of the essay, and the cash flow ("Whereas the people who actually make the product? They don't make any money."), and the paid editing ("They are suffering from, uh, a not very ethical PR person going in there."). And she literally says she doesn't trust Wikipedia's information. I don't know what you could be asking for, for an interview with this structure at this level of depth.

Post some examples and we'll see what you think of as bullying.

Also $3M is a hilarious undercount and shows your own lack of understanding, because what good is some metal without ops, software maintenance, and support services? Might you also count the lawyers who get editors out of jail, or the specialists who handle CSAM so the volunteers don't have to, or does that count as part of the jetset board too?

Yes, she gets barnstars. Are you complaining about that? Does she not do a tremendous service to the project through her outreach and recruitment efforts?

Yeah, it seems like you preferred another article, as a sibling said.

Gigawatt thermal, as opposed to gigawatt electric. Gigawatt thermal is the heat your power plant makes, whereas gigawatt electric is the electricity that the heat is used to generate. They're not the same because not all the heat can be converted into electricity, and the percent of heat that gets converted varies from power plant to power plant.