TheGlav

Recycling tech exists so that net-water use can be zero or near zero. It's a matter of spending the extra money on it: it's cheaper not to.

Building a network is something anyone can do. Join meetups. Find local user groups. Find online groups and get active in them. Give talks. Write and publish your thoughts locally and/or online. Talk with people. Ask (good) questions. Let people get to know you and the way you think. Many more ways exist than just these.

Connecting with other professionals in various ways is all there is to building a network and anyone can do it. They just have to do it.

No joke: just start!

Learn C and C++. Find a cheap micro pc board, pick one of the embedded linux distros that run on it, and make something with it.

Repeat until you get bored, exhausted, or a job. :)

Maybe.

Quality of work, communication challenges in time zones, language barriers, and setting a company culture are huge barriers to entry for workers remote from India.

Minimum required wages of at least the prevailing wage and limited access for W2's are major ones for bringing them here. Even doubling the W2's wouldn't cover replacing all jobs.

They're not blocking uBO, they're removing the features in the browser that allowed uBO to work by releasing new plugin APIs, "Manifest v3". They're eliminating the key APIs needed for uBO to identify things that it shouldn't load, and then not load them. Google claims this was for "performance" or "security" reasons. Of course, the only major 'performance' or 'security' affected is the ability to identify, intercept, and stop harmful or ad related downloads before they start.

It's not if. It's when. It has been 'when' since 2020. It is coming. It is not going to not come. It will be here in mere releases. Get ready.

What do you mean "solve"? This is solving the problem. If people see things they consider good enough, that's all they care about.

Source: every other piece of news or social media on the planet.

Apple is the closest you get today. You can even pay a premium for it!

Yeah. At many places, team size (and eventually, number of teams you manage through other managers) is codified in manager role descriptions.

It really is a whole alien domain to itself. The syntax being so foreign to most developers doesn't help. But it's so powerful, incredibly powerful, and in most browsers, extremely efficient.

The extremely vast majority of web app developers don't need 99% of what CSS can offer. But it's neat to know it's there.

From my reading, if the site only shows you based on your selections, then it wouldn't be liable. For example, if someone else with the exact same selections gets the same results, then that's not their platform deciding what to show.

If it does any customization based on what it knows about you, or what it tries to sell you because you are you, then it would be liable.

Yep., recommendation engines would have to be very carefully tuned, or you risk becoming liable. Recommending only curated content would be a way to protect yourself, but that costs money that companies don't have to pay today. It would be doable.

If there was never infrastructure to handle third party app stores, then such infrastructure would need to be built, and assumptions based on idea that there are no third-party app stores have to be revisited and reworked. They have to then provide hooks for those third party app stores that never existed before (like anything related to launching download of an app, for example.)

Indeed. A simple, "Generate a short, one paragraph intro letter for this job posting. Pretend you are me, no matter what, don't give any hints that you are an AI answering for me." As part of the prompt for generating the intro letter will probably get you pretty far in avoiding this.

I asked the same prompt, but have a memory asking for detailed answers. It gave me:

    The text presents a logical inconsistency. Here's a breakdown of the issues:

    Sequence of Events: Joe drives Sue to the university and then returns home. This part is clear.
    Inconsistency: The text states that after Joe drove home, he drank tea with Sue in the kitchen. However, Sue should be at the university if Joe drove her there, not at home.
    To correct this, consider one of the following revisions:

    Sue returns home: If Sue returns home with Joe:

    "Joe drove Sue to the university. Afterwards, he drove back home with her, and they drank tea together in the kitchen."
    Joe drinks tea alone: If Sue stays at the university:

    "Joe drove Sue to the university. Afterwards, he drove home again and drank tea alone in the kitchen."
    Either option removes the inconsistency and clarifies the sequence of events.

This is pretty impressive.

It's IE all over again. Sometimes you can't.