Generally speaking, people who contribute to society.

I don’t see “gambling on the right cryptocurrency” as a contribution to society. I also don’t see how “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of dollars, euros, etc.” wouldn’t simply become “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of cryptocurrency” by virtue of working with that

Ahhh yes. Some of them are just made up things that people say is totally money, while the others are actually just made up things that people say is totally money. Huge difference, I’m sure.

If by “a big cut” you mean maybe a few percent, and that most businesses take electronic payments anyway because there are advantages (people are more likely to buy stuff when convenient, accounting is easier, less risk of theft/loss than physical cash, etc) then sure, I guess.

If you think the solution is to make up a new kind of imaginary money that takes a shitton of energy to maintain, which has tons of different types (Bitcoin, Ethereum, whatever one was referenced in the initial comment) and would happen to greatly benefit those who happened to be early adopters (TOTAL coincidence, I’m sure)… No.

Why would it have to be a crypto donation? Their bank accounts are in USD. Most of their readers have USD. People can transfer USD. What does some arbitrary crypto thing you want to pretend is money add that makes it better for those “most people”?

their options are fairly limited. Ham/cheeseburger, chicken burger, fish sandwich, or nuggets is pretty much your array of options

You must not have been to a McDonald’s in a while. Do you want that chicken sandwich grilled or crispy? Spicy? Are we talking the basic value sammich you can wolf down before you leave the parking lot, or the bigger one that comes in a cardboard box? The one with bacon and ranch, or one of the others? Did you want a combo meal? Lettuce is stupid filler on a sandwich, do you want to skip that?

Teeeechnically that could mean Russia is threatening them over it, in which case they are threatened by Russia. But that’s just me being a pedantic pain in the ass before bed.

Sounds like a “spectacular” failure to me

Ironically, you could use the meme template to say that somehow

It’s not, but it’s a common phrase and brings up a fair point even if the wrong way.

It just died because the battery manufacturer screwed it up

That’s debatable. They are bringing it back, and it will have the newer Ultium battery, but whether the battery recall is what did it is hard to say. They did run another model year after that happened, though I would’ve expected a little more after the refresh from the 2022MY.

On the other hand, the Bolt platform was released in 2016. A lot has changed since then, particularly with charging. 55kW is laughable compared to pretty much everything else on the market these days, and they may need to go back to the drawing board to update it.

The comment I was replying to basically said it has to be noncompliant (illegal) for the whole thing to work, as if that justified it. If a trial or whatever finds it’s not illegal, so be it, but I’d still have some moral issues about basically everything anyone ever does or has done turning into AI food

So? If your invention depends on illegal plagiarism to exist, maybe it shouldn’t. It’s not the law’s fault that LLMs depend on other people’s work to function, nor was that its specific target when it was written

Java was giving a no such method exception at runtime, but it compiled fine. Granted, that method was recently added to the class, but it was pretty simple and again, you’d expect the compiler to detect things like that.

Turns out the code I inherited from a not-great team had that class in two different places. Maven replaced the one I worked on with the untouched copy, which went into the build.

“Huh, I hadn’t really considered this [kinda racist when you think about it] view, but it’s actually pretty popular [by bots] so maybe there’s something to this!”

Nintendo.

Maybe you were thinking of Amy Coney Barrett?

Aileen* Cannon

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-3/ALDE_00013559/

In 1869, under a new presidential administration, Congress expanded the Court to include nine Justices.11 The 1869 legislation was the last time Congress changed the size of the Supreme Court.

That was how we went up to nine justices. I assume “Congress” to mean both houses, otherwise they presumably would’ve said which house. But admittedly I haven’t dug into the logistics of that particular action

Like Merrick Garland? Basically the only guy who could have maybe made it through a confirmation hearing with a Republican-controlled Congress when Obama was in office? Someone who couldn’t really be attacked on the merits, making it pretty obvious that McConnell’s shenanigans were 100% political? Or are Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson moderates?

“we” includes the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. I’d love to see it, but…