That must be a giant upgrade, on account of the many ways a Boeing could be coming down.

Whenever I’ve been on the hiring side of an interview, the people seated in the interview aren’t given any special “Keep the company safe” training, but the HR person coordinating always have been. I suspect that’s why it works much better to ask in the interview than after it.

If you’re in the US, run for Congress, win, reform the medicaid backed doctor residency program, with the aim of opening it up so many more people can become doctors. Then watch as the new supply brings down salaries, and eventually gets lazy/ineffective doctors fired. Revenge is a dish best served nation wide, as they say.

I’m mentally well, I just like thinking about hypotheticals. I have no plans (nor any desire) to fight any number of squirrels to the death, and I do not condone doing so as entertainment or sport.

There are details missing in this question that matter tremendously. Squirrels are faster and more agile than us. If they are well coordinated, and behave optimally to win (without concern to their individual survival, only the group’s success), I think it would take only a small number of squirrels to brutally murder most people, something like 5. I think their best strategy would be to go for the eyes first, then inflict bleeding injuries and escape again before the person can react. Without tools, and without backup, this approach wouldn’t take long to wear down most people.

If the squirrels don’t care about their own survival, but make straightforward attacks, I’d think closer to 10-20. The person’s injuries will still compound quickly, but once thet have a grip of a squirrel, it wouldn’t be especially hard to lethally injure.

If the squirrels still behave like squirrels, and are instead attacking because (for example), they are starving, then the number probably doesn’t matter much, as they’re more likely to go after each other, and the person would have the opportunity to plan and ambush small groups at a time.

Not a song per se, but I was listening to “Relaxing - Bach in my ass”.

The sun itself is a medium that can propogate sound waves. Someone standing on the Moon could equally well make the case that there is no medium to propagate pressure waves from the Earth, so the Earth must not make a sound.

Carrots will be sweeter if you let them grow for a full season, then harvest shortly before, during, or shortly after winter. They stock up on sugars to reduce the risk of freezing, which makes them sweeter.

Companies try to maximize green per red. By paying less, and getting the same, they maximize that, year after year until (in a temporary and unforeseeable setback) you leave for… Bluer pastures, apparently.

There are different sorts of companies, and the more they think of employees as a number of years of experience plus a stack of skills, the more susceptible they are to believing that replacing humans with other equally skilled humans is a productive way to spend their time.

Indeed or Monster or someone should just publish an open source JSON spec, and then by sheer weight make it the default. I don’t understand why they haven’t done so.

I think the last 4 words of the top comment are throwing us off.

Here’s my best recounting:

Angels have eye spots to avoid becoming a tasty meal for a human. When an angel meets a human, the angel’s eye spots will scare the human, causing them to flee. In order to talk to a human, it was necessary for the angel to reassure them, “be not afraid”.

Most of the “3D” we see is made up by our brains. For evidence of this, look at a photograph, and look at how far away things are.

Having eyes spaced apart does help us to tell the distance to things that are close to us, but that is only useful for a short distance. Our brains also track the parallax and occlusion of numerous objects, which helps over longer distances, but works just fine with 1 eye.

I think there are two ways eyes could work in higher spacial dimensions, you could either have an n dimensional eye, which percieves an n-1 dimensional image, and then an understanding of “distance” is used to fill in the remaining information, or (which may just be my own 3D-ness showing) you could have several 3D eyes in different directions, each percieving different 2D images, with enough overlap to fully see the n-dimensional space. That would take n-1 eyes to properly see.

You are definitely misreading what they said. The meaning you attribute doesn’t make any sense in the context of the post and the remainder of their comment.

“Nobody I know doesn’t eat onions.” is equivalent to “Everybody I know does eat onions.” but not to “Everybody I know eats nothing except onions.”

In your first comment, in this thread, you asked “you’ve never met anyone in your life who uses pet names for their SO?”

I (and I believe the other people responding to you) don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of the comment you were responding to.

The top comment (with the double negative removed for clarity) said that Every couple that commenter knows in real life does use each others’ legal names. This does not suggest that those couples do not also use pet names, but your question implies that you think it does. This implication is what other commenters are responding to.

I’ve heard this comparison so many times I ran some experiments. A number 8 1.5" coated decking screw inserted into two one by pine boards through the grain by a hammer holds about half as well as one inserted using a screwdriver. One hit to drive the screw is better than several, but a two hit approach (one to set the angle of the screw tip, the second to send it home) was most reliable. Drilling a pilot hole before hammering improves things pretty significantly, up towards 3/4 of the holding power of a driver driven screw.

On the other hand, even very slight misalignment between the hammer swing and the screw can result in failure, and the board was always more damaged by a hammer inserted screw.

The rubber band trick is great, and very low effort/cost. I want to say, though, that it can take substantially more force than it looks like it should on small screws like this. You also don’t have to use something shaped for the original driver of the screw. With the rubber to help it, a round cylinder a little smaller than the head of the screw can work very well.

Have you tried turning them off, then turning them on again?

I’ve seen a few projects rename during major version upgrades, when everyone has to read the release notes and make changes, anyways.

Plenty of old deployed systems may continue using master/slave terminology, and of course some projects will stick to that language even decades in the future, but it was once more prevalent than it is now, and that declining trend looks like it will continue.

I think we’re still headed up the peak of inflated expectations. Quantum computing may be better at a category of problems that do a significant amount of math on a small amount of data. Traditional computing is likely to stay better at anything that requires a large amount of input data, or a large amount of output data, or only uses a small amount of math to transform the inputs to the outputs.

Anything you do with SQL, spreadsheets, images, music and video, and basically anything involved in rendering is pretty much untouchable. On the other hand, a limited number of use cases (cryptography, cryptocurrencies, maybe even AI/ML) might be much cheaper and fasrer with a quantum computer. There are possible military applications, so countries with big militaries are spending until they know whether that’s a weakness or not. If it turns out they can’t do any of the things that looked possible from the expectation peak, the whole industry will fizzle.

As for my opinion, comparing QC to early silicon computers is very misleading, because early computers improved by becoming way smaller. QC is far closer to the minimum possible size already, so there won’t be a comparable, “then grow the circuit size by a factor of ten million” step. I think they probably can’t do anything world shaking.

I think very few people mind changing it, and a few people want it changed, so it’s slowly shifting across various use cases. I’ve only discussed the change from master/slave terminology with one person that affirmatively supported the change, and they didn’t know that there’s still slavery in the world today.

I don’t know what to make of that, other than to say ending human slavery ought to be a higher priority than ending references to it.