Look, I realize the frontal lobes of the average fifteen year old aren't fully developed, I don't want to be insensitive and I fully support the lawsuit - there must be accountability for what any entity, corporate or otherwise opts to publish, especially for direct user interaction - but if a person reenacts Romeo and Juliet with a goddamn AI chatbot and a gun, there's something else seriously wrong.
wwb4itcgas
joined 2 months ago
Yes, why not waste some more taxpayer funds to polish the knob of Dear Leader like a bunch of servile supplicants? This, this right here is why I refused to serve. Not because I didn't want to defend my country (not the US), but because I didn't trust the political masters of the armed forced to use me appropriately.
Ah, life: An unceasing battle against thermodynamics that can end only in inevitable failure. In the end, even the vaguest echoes of the causal memories of us will be wiped clean when the rightful order is fully restored, universal bigotry wins, and everything is - finally - completely homogeneous.
And boring.
ABOUT OUR METHODOLOGY: To ensure representative accuracy, we ask only people still using landlines what they think. If a woman picks up, we ask for her husband or try again later. We are fully committed to keeping our data untainted by any female histrionics.
Trump's actually great at good governance. All one has to do is carefully listen to his suggestions and then do the exact opposite, and before you know it: Presto! Well-functioning highly-educated modern country with a balanced budget and booming economy.
Compared to what? Fascistic MAGA seditionists?
Now, if only PoE performance hadn't utterly tanked in every release since 10.0, I'd be happy.
The US have gotten their very own Roskomnadzor or CAC. Truly the Land of the Free is great once more.
Ironically, that might be the most useful contribution to eventual peace in Ukraine the US has made for some time now.
Thanks, I guess.
Meanwhile, in Congress: "Emoluments Clause? Wazzat? Can I eat it? Conflict of Interest? Sounds tasty."
To paraquote H. L. Mencken: For every problem, there is a solution that's cheap, fast, easy to implement -- and wrong.
Silver bullets and magic wands don't really exist, I'm afraid. There's amble reasons for DBA's being well-paid people.
There's basically three options: Either increase the hardware capabilities to be able to handle the amount of data you want to deal with, decrease the amount of data so that the hardware you've got can handle it at the level of performance you want or... Live with the status quo.
If throwing more hardware at the issue was an option, I presume you would just have done so. As for how to viably decrease the amount of data in your active set, well, that's hard to say without knowledge of the data and what you want to do with it. Is it a historical dataset or time series? If so, do you need to integrate the entire series back until the dawn of time, or can you narrow the focus to a recent time window and shunt old data off to cold storage? Is all the data per sample required at all times, or can details that are only seldom needed be split off into separate detail tables that can be stored on separate physical drives at least?
Those are some excellent points. The root cause seems to me to be the otherwise generally positive human capability for pack-bonding. There are people who can develop affection for their favorite toaster, let alone something that can trivially pass a Turing-test.
This... Is going to become a serious issue, isn't it?