waqf

Recently I searched Google for a slightly unlikely phrase — in quotation marks — and Google proudly told me that my phrase was grammatically correct.

And nothing else. They didn't give me any search results. Or even tell me there weren't any results. Or even give me a button to press to say "no, I really wanted to search the internet for this phrase".

And also I have zero interest in Google's opinion on English grammar and am frankly insulted to be offered it, although to be fair I'm probably in a minority worldwide on that one.

If I can't use Google to search the internet for things, then Google is eventually going to have a big problem.

Moving to another country is a nightmare because you cannot bring your phone number.

I am currently paying for a US phone number I don't meaningfully use, because it's not clear that all of my important account-holding organizations reliably support a two-factor/login confirmation strategy that isn't "US phone number".

My experience is that the major limiting factor in finding partners is whether people "click" with me, not whether people are single.

In other words I'm better off going to an event with my kind of people and looking for the 5% that are eligible singles, than going to an event with singles and looking for the 0.5% that are my kind of people.

Obviously this would be different if you're a person who likes almost everyone and is attractive to almost everyone — a golden retriever, as it were. I offer no opinion on whether many such people exist.

Arguably the problem is that copyright enforcement has been farmed out to private middlemen with a fast and loose process.

Do you still feel uncomfortable if you cannot see outside the train at all (i.e. not even in peripheral vision)? My understanding was that the effect was caused by the scenery outside the window moving in a way that's incommensurate with what your sense of balance is telling you.

Discreet users, or discrete users? (I initially assumed you meant discreet, i.e. not wanting to share login details, but the comment read oddly as a result.)

I assume you're referring to the graph on the page you linked. Is there an explanation somewhere of exactly how it is calculated?

I tried to read the "article" underneath the graph but it just seems to be a disjointed collection of assertions strung together with inappropriate connectives and insane formatting.

Every rational number is a p-adic number (though not necessarily a p-adic integer, of course). So doesn't that mean p-adic numbers would be below rationals?

This is speculative and based on a possibly not-representative sample, but what I've noticed from watching bodycam footage is that when the suspect asks for a supervisor, the police give negative/discouraging replies to the suspect while they are also calling a supervisor in the background.

I assume the intention is to comply with the letter of the law while maximizing the chance that the suspect will abandon the request and not force them to wait until the supervisor arrives.

You're an AI, aren't you?

Strictly speaking they're all non-piano intervals, just some are more non-piano than others. (Or you can retune your piano …)

My impression is that it's a technical case (not just about software, but really also about how accounting evidence should look) and that it was subverted by misleading testimony from the needed expert witnesses.

I don't disagree that the UK needs to take a long, hard look at its judicial system, but what system is safe from this kind of problem and how so?