MajorasMaskForever

Most definitely. The fact that the four door 5 foot box exists is hilarious to me in a sad kind of way.

I occasionally get made fun of for owning a 22 two door Ranger, that I bought a "tiny" truck. Honestly I hate how big it is, but I wanted a truck that would be my single vehicle, something I can use for DIY house projects, commute in, go camping/off roading, and take on cross country road trips. Custom ordered it with the specific features I wanted all for ~40k, meanwhile the guys giving me shit for it are paying just as much for a truck with less features, it never leaves the city, and waaaaay more expensive at the pump.

Morons

For these kinds of comparisons people have to cherry pick and cannot compare similar class trucks because similar class trucks haven't really changed in 30 years

If you compare the size of a base 1990 F150 https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/1990/features-specs/

To a base 2025 F150 https://www.edmunds.com/ford/f-150/2025/features-specs/

The 2025 is 6 inches shorter, barely an inch taller, and barely an inch wider. Or in terms of percentages: -3.1%, +1.1%, +1.2% respectively

What has changed in 30 years is it was common back then for an average consumer to buy a "regular" cab two door truck with a 6 foot box, four door behemoths were rare. If you wanted a 4 door truck you had to get the F350

Today it's the other way around, it's rare to see a single cab F150 and now you can get a 4 door F150

From a technology standpoint, nothing is stopping them. From a business standpoint: hubris.

To put time and effort into creating traditional logic based algorithms to compensate for this generic math model would be to admit what mathematicians and scientists have known for centuries. That models are good at finding patterns but they do not explain why a relationship exists (if it exists at all). The technology is fundamentally flawed for the use cases that OpenAI is trying to claim it can be used in, and programming around it would be to acknowledge that.

I didn't use the word no because I felt my answer needed more explanation. Short term no, long term yes with a ton of caveats.

There's a difference between being uninformed and wilfully ignorant. Blasting politicians for there actions based on a headline is wilfully ignorant and yeah I'll call them fucking morons. And on a post about an article that people clearly didn't read, I'm inclined to call that out.

As for your reality, what's better? Willingly lie and manipulate the electorate expecting them to be too dumb or stupid to notice, manufacturer headlines, fabricate a whole new reality just to achieve political victory? I despise the republican party because that's exactly what they do

Have you read Colorado legislation? I haven't gotten through all of it, but there's a lot of stuff in there, some of it even contradictory or tied to things that have been obsolete for a hundred years. There's absolutely value in a system, government or otherwise, that attempts to minimize active rules and regulations, so I wildly disagree with your notion that minimizing regulations is a nonsense excuse. Regardless of its association of some talking head on Fox talking about the eViL FedERaL GuvMenT

Fixing headline only reactions requires people to use critical thinking skills and to understand that stories have nuance and can't be boiled down to just a few words. That requires education which this country seems hellbent on eliminating

Having an abundance of laws on the books leads to real government inefficiencies and I think those are worth putting time and effort into eliminating. I know I used a lot of the same words as he who should actually get deported, so I feel it necessary to clarify that I do not agree at all with what him and the rest of administration is claiming to be making the government more efficient.

What I want is for people to actually read and think, even if it differs from my own thoughts. The whole reason I made my original comment is that the headline and reactions in this thread frame Polis as if he went out of his way to make collusion legal for land lords, and if people read the article and looked at Polis's track record that is objectively not what he did

There's enough nuance to that veto I disagree on that being superfluous a law existing on the books. It takes 50% of employees to vote in favor of forming a union. That part was not going to change under that bill. The repeal (and it's subsequent veto) was entirely on the vote threshold to allow a union to charge all employees union dues regardless of membership status.

Now there's is an argument that the law indirectly disincentives unions since in combination with another law unions in CO must act on behalf of all employees, regardless of membership status, so a union must do more work on less money since 50% of employees are needed to create a union for 100% of employees, but 75% of employees are needed to force all 100% of employees to pay for that extra representation. Most people if given the opportunity will act selfishly and won't join the union and still reap the benefits. In that event, it's pretty likely a union wouldn't have the funds to perform necessary negotiations and representation ultimately leading the union to fail.

But that's a set of laws and human behavior acting in concert, not a single law that on its own is entirely captured by another.

Had the bill passed nothing would have changed in Colorado. The bill was simply virtue signalling and grandstanding, taking no real action to the very real problem of rental prices in Colorado.

My criticism of the original comment is that this is not an instance of Democratic policy that is making people distance themselves from the party. If a person does distance themself from the party over an action like this, they did it because of the headline and how that headline made them feel in the moment

CO resident here:

Polis didn't veto the bill because he wanted to have rent raised in Colorado, or make collusion legal and anti-trust illegal, he vetoed the bill because what it was making illegal is already illegal here. Passing this new law would have done nothing except increase the number of laws on the books. Over the last few years Polis has made it a priority to remove superfluous laws from the books.

If this is causing Democrats to lose support, it's not because of the policy, it's because of the headline-only-reactions and refusal of so many voters to actually think about what it is they're presented with

You don't. In C everything gets referenced by a symbol during the link stage of compilation. Libraries ultimately get treated like your source code during compilation and all items land in a symbol table. Two items with the same name result in a link failure and compilation aborts. So a library and a program with main is no bueno.

When Linux loads an executable they basically look at the program's symbol table and search for "main" then start executing at that point

Windows behaves mostly the same way, as does MacOS. Most RTOS's have their own special way of doing things, bare metal you're at the mercy of your CPU vendor. The C standard specifies that "main" is the special symbol we all just happen to use

It's soooooooo boring. I've suffered through it twice and both times I was completely checked out waiting for the movie to end to go do something else with my friends.

To make things worse, I work in the aerospace industry on spacecraft so this movie regularly comes up in conversations and inevitably I end up having to explain how I did not like it

Reaction time

In the US, using a cord like this will either be harmless or create effectively a dead short. Typical breakers will catch the latter but it will take tenths of a second for a breaker to react in which time the electricity could kill someone.

Depending on circuit conditions a GFCI might intervene as well, they're typically faster at reacting (needing a few milliseconds) but for a cable designed to handle full residential power, it's still enough to kill a person in that small window of time

I'd argue the two aren't as different as you make them out to be. Both types of projects want a functional codebase, both have limited developer resources (communities need volunteers, business have a budget limit), and both can benefit greatly from the development process being sped up. Many development practices that are industry standard today started in the open source world (style guides and version control strategy to name two heavy hitters) and there's been some bleed through from the other direction as well (tool juggernauts like Atlassian having new open source alternatives made directly in response)

No project is immune to bad code, there's even a lot of bad code out there that was believed to be good at the time, it mostly worked, in retrospect we learn how bad it is, but no one wanted to fix it.

The end goals and proposes are for sure different between community passion projects and corporate financial driven projects. But the way you get there is more or less the same, and that's the crux of the articles argument: Historically open source and closed source have done the same thing, so why is this one tool usage so wildly different?