“oy, where’s my change?” “What change?” “For the money I gave you” “Besides payment for your 10 Dollar Lemonade special offer, I didn’t get any.” “But the sign says 1,50!” 1And a nice day to you, too" “Wait! I want my…” “I said: A nice day, Sir.”
“oy, where’s my change?” “What change?” “For the money I gave you” “Besides payment for your 10 Dollar Lemonade special offer, I didn’t get any.” “But the sign says 1,50!” 1And a nice day to you, too" “Wait! I want my…” “I said: A nice day, Sir.”
I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…
I also know that I cannot tell the difference between two IPv6 addresses because they all merge into an indiscernible blur inside my head
And once you have found your specific collection of plugins that happen not to put the exact features you need behind a paywall but others, you ain’t touching those either.
No it hasn’t. It has just pushed them out of sight for English natives.
Emoji in headline, your joy is invalid.
Besides that: enjoy your invalid joy bro
Forgive them. They aren’t used to choosing their browser yet.
sadly, no. Anticheat Systems are designed to be paranoid as fuck. So even some readout of the hardware used that WINE handles a tad differently than Windows might trip it.