People who claim “guys” is gender neutral would most often only count men when asked the question “How many guys did you sleep with in your life?”

Until I find a single person who immediately thinks of people of any gender at that question, I will not fall for the internalized misogyny of “‘guys’ is gender neutral” meme. (Same with “dudes” and all the other ones I’ve seen over the years. I’ve even seen someone say “bro” is gender neutral.)

Don’t wanna be pedantic (yes I do) but after a little bit of searching, the originally presented quote seems correct (without the “and” though, it seems). Your version is mixed with a common misquote “Slowly at first, then all at once.” of that quote.

Sure. You have to solve it from inside out:

• not()…See comment below for this one, I was tricked is a base function that negates what’s inside (turning True to False and vice versa) giving it no parameter returns “True” (because no parameter counts as False)
• str(x) turns x into a string, in this case it turns the boolean True into the text string ‘True’
• min(x) returns the minimal element of an iterable. In this case the character ‘T’ because capital letters come before non-capital letters, otherwise it would return ‘e’ (I’m not entirely sure if it uses unicode, ascii or something else to compare characters, but usually capitals have a lower value than non-capitals and otherwise in alphabetical order ascending)
• ord(x) returns the unicode number of x, in this case turning ‘T’ into the integer 84
• range(x) creates an iterable from 0 to x (non-inclusive), in this case you can think of it as the list [0, 1, 2, …82, 83] (it’s technically an object of type range but details…)
• sum(x) sums up all elements of a list, summing all numbers between 0 and 84 (non-inclusive) is 3486
• chr(x) is the inverse of ord(x) and returns the character at position x, which, you guessed it, is ‘ඞ’ at position 3486.

The huge coincidental part is that ඞ lies at a position that can be reached by a cumulative sum of integers between 0 and a given integer. From there on it’s only a question of finding a way to feed that integer into chr(sum(range(x)))

Good intentions alone don’t guarantee good outcomes. I suggest not giving any single person or entity too much power, no matter who they are.

Source

I hope you’re right because this article says they used a spray can.

Which brings me back to the last point in my comment.

I also hope I’m right. The two times I looked into it (right after the attack and before writing my comment) both came up with that result. Also it seems that English Heritage came out today saying there was “No visible damage”.

As I said, I’m not writing to defend the action, just pointing out that the OP article is, willfully or not, omitting certain aspects that could make JSO look a little bit better.

Edit: Formatting

but we did damage a 5000-year-old monument

As far as I could find out, they used orange cornflour that will just wash off the next time it rains. The most amount of damage anyone could seriously bring up was that it could harm/displace the lichen on the henge.

That’s not to say that I specifically condone the action, but it’s a lot less bad than this article makes it sound. It’s the same with the soup attack on one of van Gogh’s painting, which had protective glass on it. So far all the JSO actions targeting cultural/historical things (at least the ones that made it to the big news) have been done in a way that makes them sound awful at first hearing, but intentionally did not actually damage the targeted cultural/historical thing.

I think the biases of the journalist/news outlet/etc. are somewhat exposed by which parts they focus on and which they downplay or omit entirely.

I’d argue that with their definition of bots as “a software application that runs automated tasks over the internet” and later their definition of download bots as “Download bots are automated programs that can be used to automatically download software or mobile apps.”, automated software updates could absolutely be counted as bot activity by them.

Of course, if they count it as such, the traffic generated that way would fall into the 17.3% “good bot” traffic and not in the 30.2% “bad bot” traffic.

Looking at their report, without digging too deep into it, I also find it concerning that they seem to use “internet traffic” and “website traffic” interchangeably.

Funny because all they have to do is ask ChatGPT “Are you always right?” and it’ll answer something about it trying to always be right but indeed not always being right.

Without knowing any specifics of the TOS or the exact setup beyond what I could gather in this thread: generally speaking they could still send you a bill through email or otherwise.

After that, if you’re not paying up, they might be able to successfully get the money out of you through court regardless, depending on a few factors. What’s more likely for smaller sums is that they’ll just drop it and ban you though.

IANAL of course.

It’s organized by the European Broadcasting Union which includes a lot of countries in Northern Africa, some countries in the Caucasus region and some of the countries inbetween.

Australia also joined Eurovision though despite not being a member of the EBU…

Yeah, wtf. That’s not “right to repair(verb)” it’s “right to repair(noun)”. Totally different concepts.

I think the humor is meant to be in the juxtaposition between “reference” in media contexts (e.g. “I am your father”) and “reference” in programming contexts and applying the latter context to the former one.

What does “I’m your father” mean if the movie is jaws?

I think the absurdity of that question is part of said humor. That being said, I didn’t find it funny either.

This exact image (without the caption-header of course) was on one of the slides for one of the machine-learning related courses at my college, so I assume it’s definitely out there somewhere and also was likely part of the training sets used by OpenAI. Also, the image in those slides has a different watermark at the bottom left, so it’s fair to assume it’s made its rounds.

Contradictory to this post, it was used as an example for a problem that machine learning can solve far better than any algorithms humans would come up with.

I think it would be fine as an official extension. Shipping it built-in feels weird to me.